Subject: [saag] RATS report to SAAG

From: "Smith, Ned" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 19:38:28 +0000

IETF 109 SAAG Report for RATS WG

The Remote Attestation Procedures (RATS) WG met Tuesday November 17. An overflow session was scheduled for Thursday, but was cancelled due to lack of overflow topics. In session 1, four of the five adopted drafts were discussed along with a topic on “FIDO and EAT Dependencies”.

RATS Architecture https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-architecture/
	The arch draft is nearly ready for WGLC. About half the room has reviewed the draft thus far. The chairs are looking for 2 or 3 volunteers to do a top to bottom review.

CHARRA https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-yang-tpm-charra/
	This draft contains a lot of YANG definition that requires YANG doctor review; which is in progress and expected to be complete soon. However, review by someone with TPM v1.2 and v2.0 expertise is needed - preferably someone who is familiar with YANG. Once reviews are complete it is expected CHARRA will be ready for WGLC.

Interaction Models https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-reference-interaction-models/
	No new changes since the last virtual interim. Review of sections 6 and 7 needed to move this forward. It hasn’t been decided if this draft will pursue standards or informational track. Two people suggested it should remain informational since implementors do not directly conform to its content.

EAT https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-eat/ 
	A list of topics was presented that are determined to be blockers for WGLC. Each topic was discussed and in some cases resolutions were identified. See meeting notes for additional details https://codimd.ietf.org/notes-ietf-109-rats?view 
“FIDO and EAT Dependencies”

	The FIDO Alliance is working on a specification for IoT onboarding that would include RATS attestation capabilities. However, the FIDO specs may be ready sooner than RATS WG reaches final publication that would nail down IANA namespace reservations. The WG asked for a short list of identifiers that FIDO specs would need and to evaluate if each of these are well defined enough to authorize IANA namespace reservation in advance of an official publication.