Hi carl, thank you very much for the detailed feedback, indeed some 
clarification are needed. Please see inline

Peter
From: Carl Wallace <c...@redhoundsoftware.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2024 11:32 PM
To: Liuchunchi(Peter) <liuchun...@huawei.com>; acme@ietf.org
Cc: acme-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Acme] new acme draft -- rats identifier and challenge

I gave the draft a quick skim. I realize it is understood that much work 
remains but wanted to point out a few terminology issues and perhaps some gaps 
in the specs that might underpin this mechanism.

1)            That you have different challenge types to sustain the passport 
model and the background check model is good, but I think at present there is 
some confusion about the passport model. Section 3.1 suggests the "entire EAT" 
is provided in support of passport model operations. This is inconsistent with 
section 5.1 of RFC9334 (assuming the ACME server is playing the role of Relying 
Party).
[CPL] please see response 3

2) Section 3.1 suggests that EATs must be presented in JWT format. In my 
opinion, this is not an election a specification like this can make. EATS may 
be JWTs or CWTs (and there are other formats it may make sense to consider here 
as well for completeness which dovetails into Mike’s comment).
[CPL]: Sorry for the confusion, it should be “for example” JWT, not restricting 
to only JWT

3) Throughout (or at least in some cases) I think the term "attestationResult" 
is being used to mean "evidence." If attestation result is actually meant, 
there will need to be a reference to an attestation result format. I’m not sure 
anything suitable exists at present.
[CPL]: it is my humble understanding that EAT can be either used to encode 
evidence or attestation result. Maybe draft-ietf-rats-ar4si or 
draft-fv-rats-ear-03 is usable?

4) Section 3.2 suggests that evidence will be generated to include the "token" 
claim. I tend to doubt all attesting environments will be so flexible as to 
support introduction of arbitrary claims. Deciding how to address this should 
probably follow deciding what RATS role the ACME server is playing in each 
challenge scenario. It may be that requesting a nonce and using a nonce claim 
is the right thing here (leaving token to serve its original purpose only).
[CPL]: my humble understanding is this token can be used as a rats 
freshness-nonce (Section 10.2 from rfc9334), sent from RATS appraising entity 
to the attester. In this case, the ACME server is the RATS Relying Party I 
think. Could reusing “token” claim as rats nonce somehow cause some trouble, 
and send a separate nonce would be better?
Thanks again for all the good comments and contribution is highly welcomed in 
our github page<https://github.com/liuchunchi/draft-liu-acme-rats>

From: "Liuchunchi(Peter)" 
<liuchunchi=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:liuchunchi=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org>>
Date: Wednesday, October 23, 2024 at 3:22 AM
To: "acme@ietf.org<mailto:acme@ietf.org>" <acme@ietf.org<mailto:acme@ietf.org>>
Cc: "acme-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:acme-cha...@ietf.org>" 
<acme-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:acme-cha...@ietf.org>>
Subject: [Acme] new acme draft -- rats identifier and challenge

Hi folks,

Recently I submitted a new ACME draft that extends “rats” identifier and 
challenge type. The purpose of this work is to provide a means that allows an 
ACME server to test if an ACME client possess a valid remote attestation result 
(and an identifier to that), before issuing a certificate to it. Wonder if 
anyone may find this work interesting?

The draft is here https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-acme-rats/ and 
github repo is here https://github.com/liuchunchi/draft-liu-acme-rats, with 
some todos that welcomes contribution or comments.

Dear chairs, can I request a small slot in Dublin to share this work? 15 or 10 
minutes would suffice.

Best,
Peter (Chunchi) Liu

_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list -- 
acme@ietf.org<mailto:acme@ietf.org> To unsubscribe send an email to 
acme-le...@ietf.org<mailto:acme-le...@ietf.org>
_______________________________________________
Acme mailing list -- acme@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to acme-le...@ietf.org

Reply via email to