]> Fraunhofer SIT

henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de

Intel

ned.smith@intel.com

arm

thomas.fossati@arm.com

arm

hannes.tschofenig@arm.com

Security Remote ATtestation ProcedureS evidence attestation result endorsement reference value This document defines two encapsulation formats for RATS conceptual messages (e.g., evidence, attestation results, endorsements and reference values.) Discussion Venues Discussion of this document takes place on the Remote ATtestation ProcedureS Working Group mailing list (rats@ietf.org), which is archived at . Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at .

Introduction The RATS architecture defines a handful of conceptual messages (). Each conceptual message can have multiple serialization formats (). The same serialized message may have to be transported via different protocols - for example, EAT evidence in a "background check" topological arrangement, AR4SI attestation results in "passport" mode. In order to minimize the cost associated with registration and maximize interoperability, it is desirable to reuse their typing information across such boundaries. This document defines two encapsulation formats for RATS conceptual messages that aim to achieve the goals stated above. These encapsulation formats are designed to be:

• Self-describing - which removes the dependency on the framing provided by the embedding protocol (or the storage system) to convey exact typing information.
• Based on media types - which allows amortising their registration cost across many different usage scenarios.

A protocol designer could use these formats, for example, to convey evidence, endorsements or reference values in certificates and CRLs extensions (), to embed attesation results or evidence as first class authentication credentials in TLS handshake messages , to transport attestation-related payloads in RESTful APIs, or for stable storage of attestation results in form of file system objects.

Conventions and Definitions The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. In this document, CDDL is used to describe the data formats. The reader is assumed to be familiar with the vocabulary and concepts defined in .

Conceptual Message Wrapper Encodings Two types of RATS Conceptual Message Wrapper (CMW) are specified in this document:

1. a CMW using a CBOR or a JSON array ()
2. a CMW based on CBOR tags ().

CMW Array The CMW array illustrated in is composed of two members:

• type: ether a text string representing a media-type or an unsigned integer corresponding to a CoAP Content-Format
• value: the RATS conceptual message serialized according to the value defined in the type member.

A CMW array can be encoded as CBOR or JSON . When using JSON, the value field is encoded as Base64 using the URL and filename safe alphabet (Section 5 of ) without padding. When using CBOR, the value field is serialized as a CBOR bytes string.

CDDL definition

CMW CBOR Tags CBOR Tags used as CMW are derived from CoAP Content Format values. If a CoAP Content Format exists for a RATS conceptual message, the TN() transform defined in can be used to derive a CBOR tag in range [1668546817, 1668612095].

Examples The (equivalent) examples below assume the media-type application/vnd.example.rats-conceptual-msg has been registered alongside a corresponding CoAP content format 30001. The CBOR tag 1668576818 is derived applying the TN transform as described in .

CBOR encoding

JSON encoding

CBOR tag

Security Considerations TODO Security

IANA Considerations When registering a new media type for evidence, in addition to its syntactical description, the author SHOULD provide a public and stable description of the signing and appraisal procedures associated with the data format.

References Normative References This document describes the commonly used base 64, base 32, and base 16 encoding schemes. It also discusses the use of line-feeds in encoded data, use of padding in encoded data, use of non-alphabet characters in encoded data, use of different encoding alphabets, and canonical encodings. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document defines procedures for the specification and registration of media types for use in HTTP, MIME, and other Internet protocols. This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice. The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) is a specialized web transfer protocol for use with constrained nodes and constrained (e.g., low-power, lossy) networks. The nodes often have 8-bit microcontrollers with small amounts of ROM and RAM, while constrained networks such as IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs) often have high packet error rates and a typical throughput of 10s of kbit/s. The protocol is designed for machine- to-machine (M2M) applications such as smart energy and building automation. CoAP provides a request/response interaction model between application endpoints, supports built-in discovery of services and resources, and includes key concepts of the Web such as URIs and Internet media types. CoAP is designed to easily interface with HTTP for integration with the Web while meeting specialized requirements such as multicast support, very low overhead, and simplicity for constrained environments. JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) is a lightweight, text-based, language-independent data interchange format. It was derived from the ECMAScript Programming Language Standard. JSON defines a small set of formatting rules for the portable representation of structured data. This document removes inconsistencies with other specifications of JSON, repairs specification errors, and offers experience-based interoperability guidance. This document proposes a notational convention to express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) data structures (RFC 7049). Its main goal is to provide an easy and unambiguous way to express structures for protocol messages and data formats that use CBOR or JSON. The Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL), standardized in RFC 8610, provides "control operators" as its main language extension point. The present document defines a number of control operators that were not yet ready at the time RFC 8610 was completed: , , and for the construction of constants; / for including ABNF (RFC 5234 and RFC 7405) in CDDL specifications; and for indicating the use of a non-basic feature in an instance. This document defines a stored ("file") format for Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) data items that is friendly to common systems that recognize file types, such as the Unix file(1) command. The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) is a data format whose design goals include the possibility of extremely small code size, fairly small message size, and extensibility without the need for version negotiation. These design goals make it different from earlier binary serializations such as ASN.1 and MessagePack. This document obsoletes RFC 7049, providing editorial improvements, new details, and errata fixes while keeping full compatibility with the interchange format of RFC 7049. It does not create a new version of the format. In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings. Informative References Fraunhofer SIT Microsoft Sandelman Software Works Intel Corporation Huawei Technologies In network protocol exchanges it is often useful for one end of a communication to know whether the other end is in an intended operating state. This document provides an architectural overview of the entities involved that make such tests possible through the process of generating, conveying, and evaluating evidentiary claims. An attempt is made to provide for a model that is neutral toward processor architectures, the content of claims, and protocols. Security Theory LLC Qualcomm Technologies Inc. Qualcomm Technologies Inc. Red Hound Software, Inc. An Entity Attestation Token (EAT) provides an attested claims set that describes state and characteristics of an entity, a device like a smartphone, IoT device, network equipment or such. This claims set is used by a relying party, server or service to determine how much it wishes to trust the entity. An EAT is either a CBOR Web Token (CWT) or JSON Web Token (JWT) with attestation-oriented claims. Cisco Systems Fraunhofer SIT MIT Arm Limited Intel This document defines reusable Attestation Result information elements. When these elements are offered to Relying Parties as Evidence, different aspects of Attester trustworthiness can be evaluated. Additionally, where the Relying Party is interfacing with a heterogeneous mix of Attesting Environment and Verifier types, consistent policies can be applied to subsequent information exchange between each Attester and the Relying Party. Arm Limited Arm Limited Arm Limited Arm Limited Arm Limited Various attestation technologies have been developed and formats have been standardized. Examples include the Entity Attestation Token (EAT) and Trusted Platform Modules (TPMs). Once attestation information has been produced on a device it needs to be communicated to a relying party. This information exchange may happen at different layers in the protocol stack. This specification provides a generic way of passing attestation information in the TLS handshake. Trusted Computing Group

Acknowledgments TODO acknowledge.