



Remote ATtestation ProcedureS                                     L. Xia
Internet-Draft                                                  W. Jiang
Intended status: Standards Track                     Huawei Technologies
Expires: 23 April 2026                                      M. U. Sardar
                                                              TU Dresden
                                                             H. Birkholz
                                                          Fraunhofer SIT
                                                                J. Zhang
                                                               H. Labiod
                                     Huawei Technologies France S.A.S.U.
                                                         20 October 2025


     Integration of Remote Attestation with Key Negotiation and Key
                        Distribution mechanisms
             draft-xia-rats-key-negotiation-integration-01

Abstract

   This draft proposes a lightweight security enhancement scheme based
   on integration of remote attestation with key negotiation and key
   distribution.  Correctly integrating the main steps of end-to-end key
   negotiation into the remote attestation process may provide more
   security and flexibility.

About This Document

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Status information for this document may be found at
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xia-rats-key-negotiation-
   integration/.

   Discussion of this document takes place on the Remote ATtestation
   ProcedureS Working Group mailing list (mailto:rats@ietf.org), which
   is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rats/.
   Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats/.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/ietf-rats/draft-xia-rats-key-negotiation-
   integration.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.





Xia, et al.               Expires 23 April 2026                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft      RATS Key Negotiation Integration        October 2025


   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 23 April 2026.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Use of Negotiated Keys in Different Security Protocols  .   4
     1.2.  Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.  Integration Scheme  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.1.  Public Cloud KMS Key Distribution Integrated with Remote
           Attestation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.2.  Integrating E2E Key Negotiation Into Remote
           Attestation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.3.  Enterprise Customer Key Distribution to Public Cloud Into
           Remote Attestation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   3.  Remote Attestation Protocol and Message Extensions  . . . . .   9
   4.  Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.1.  Trustee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  Optimization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12



Xia, et al.               Expires 23 April 2026                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft      RATS Key Negotiation Integration        October 2025


   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction

   Remote attestation is a security mechanism based on trusted hardware
   (e.g., TPM, TEE) to allow remote verifiers to cryptographically
   verify the integrity of the target device's software configuration,
   hardware state, and runtime environment.  Therefore, remote
   attestation can effectively demonstrate the overall security status
   of endpoints in a communication.  Secure channel protocols (e.g.,
   TLS, QUIC, IPSec and SSH) establish end-to-end (E2E) secure channels
   based on the authentication of the endpoint's legitimate identity and
   secure key negotiation, thereby ensuring the security of network
   communication.  Combining remote attestation protocols with secure
   channel protocols correctly and establishing cryptographic binding
   between them achieves a logical binding of endpoint security and
   network security.  This ensures dual verification and protection of
   the endpoint's identity and state in secure connections.  Attested
   TLS [I-D.fossati-tls-attestation]
   [I-D.fossati-tls-exported-attestation] is currently important related
   work in the industry.  Other similar works include binding remote
   attestation with credential issuance (e.g., certificates
   [I-D.ietf-lamps-csr-attestation], OAuth tokens, etc.) to enhance
   security.

   However, in some scenarios, the above binding may not be possible.
   For example:

   *  Scenario 1: When tenants in a public cloud/compute cluster deploy
      workloads, they need to first verify the security of their runtime
      environment through remote attestation before requesting the Key
      Management Service (KMS) to assign application-layer data keys to
      the virtual machine (VM)/compute node on which the workload is
      running.  These keys are then used for application-layer data
      encryption, such as file encryption or disk encryption, rather
      than for any secure channel protocols.  For example, to protect
      AI/ML model parameters from leakage and tampering, for example,
      model weights and other parameters must be encrypted before
      transmiting and loading the model to a Trusted Execution
      Environment (TEE) to ensure that only the TEE with the right the
      key can decrypts it.

   *  Scenario 2: The end user/client accesses the online TEE computing
      environment, submits their data for business processing or large
      model inference and must ensure the security of the entire
      computing environment through remote attestation before
      establishing a secure connection.  There are multiple options for
      the secure channel protocol that can be established for this use



Xia, et al.               Expires 23 April 2026                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft      RATS Key Negotiation Integration        October 2025


      case, such as TLS, IPSec, QUIC and OHTTP.  The user may only need
      to complete end-to-end (E2E) key negotiation based on remote
      attestation.  The negotiated key can be used for various
      implementation methods, depending on which secure protocol or
      application layer encryption is used.

   *  Scenario 3: A company intends to deploy its private large model or
      file system in the trusted execution environment (TEE) of a public
      cloud platform.  In order to keep the deployed content
      confidential, the company first uploads the encrypted objects to
      the cloud platform.  It then conducts a security check on the
      cloud platform's TEE using remote attestation.  Once this has been
      passed, the decryption key is sent to decrypt the uploaded objects
      inside the TEE.

   In summary, this draft introduces the idea of integrating remote
   attestation and security mechanisms like key negotiation and key
   distribution to build less complex, lightweight and enhanced security
   schemes.  More precisely, the combination of both attestation and
   security mechanisms brings the followings benefits::

   *  The key distribution of KMS or E2E key negotiation can be
      completed automatically based on remote attestation, thereby
      improving the security of key negotiation.

   *  The automatically negotiated keys can be flexibly applied in
      various ways, whether for secure protocols or application layer
      encryption.

   *  Compared to the complete and systematic implementation of Attested
      TLS, a more lightweight implementation can be provided.

1.1.  Use of Negotiated Keys in Different Security Protocols

   If the negotiated key is used for application-layer encryption, its
   usage is closely tied to the application and can be highly flexible.
   When the key is used for security protocols such as TLS and IPsec,
   there are various ways to integrate and utilise it within the
   protocol:

   *  TLS: The negotiated key can be used as a pre-shared key for
      subsequent TLS handshakes, or as an externally imported shared key
      for TLS hybrid key exchange [I-D.ietf-tls-hybrid-design].
      Integrating all these pre-shared keys into the TLS protocol can be
      achieved through the hybrid authentication mode of
      TLS_CERT_WITH_EXTERN_PSK.  This approach not only implements a
      mutual authentication using the pre-shared key/SK and the server
      certificate/attester's identity but also verifies the binding



Xia, et al.               Expires 23 April 2026                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft      RATS Key Negotiation Integration        October 2025


      relationship between the SK and the attester's identity.  If the
      server certificate obtained during the TLS negotiation cannot be
      correctly bound to the currently used pre-shared key, the TLS
      negotiation will terminate.

   *  IPsec: The negotiated key can be used as a pre-shared key for
      subsequent IKEv2 handshakes, or as Post-quantum Preshared Keys
      (PPKs) [RFC8784] to be used in the IPsec protocol.  Similar to
      TLS, the IKEv2 hybrid authentication mode using pre-shared keys
      and certificates achieves mutual authentication and ensures the
      correctness of the binding relationship between the two.

1.2.  Requirements Notation

   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 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.  Integration Scheme

   The current specification is based on passport model of RATS.  Future
   versions of specification will include the background-check model.

2.1.  Public Cloud KMS Key Distribution Integrated with Remote
      Attestation

   The Key Management Service (KMS) for public cloud networks includes
   the root of trust, secure channels between Attester (node, VM,
   container, service, application) and the KMS, full lifecycle
   management of keys (including key generation, storage, rotation, and
   destruction), hierarchical encryption architecture (such as Envelope
   Encryption), and access control mechanisms.  Specifically:

   *  The basic process for symmetric key distribution and usage is as
      follows: When an application requires data to be encrypted and
      shared, it requests the KMS to distribute the DEK (Data Encryption
      Key) and the EDEK (Encrypted DEK, encrypted using the Customer
      Master Key (CMK) ) to the application via an API.  The application
      then encrypts the data using the DEK, deletes the DEK from memory,
      and sends the encrypted ciphertext along with the EDEK to the
      receiving application.  The receiving application then requests
      the KMS to decrypt the EDEK via an API, retrieves the DEK to
      decrypt the data, and then deletes the DEK from memory.






Xia, et al.               Expires 23 April 2026                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft      RATS Key Negotiation Integration        October 2025


   *  The basic process of asymmetric key distribution and usage is as
      follows: When an application needs to encrypt data, it requests
      the KMS to generate a public-private key pair via an API, and then
      uses the obtained public key to encrypt the data.  The encrypted
      ciphertext is then sent to the receiving application.  The
      receiving application calls the KMS's decryption API and the KMS
      uses the corresponding private key internally to decrypt the data
      and return the plaintext to the receiving application.  The
      private key never leaves the KMS.When an application requires
      digital signing of data, it requests the KMS to generate a
      public–private key pair via an API.  The public key is then
      distributed to all parties that need to verify the signature.  The
      application then requests the KMS to sign the data using the
      corresponding private key via an API, and sends the signature
      result along with the data to the receiving application.  The
      receiving application uses the public key to verify the signature.

   In summary, KMS provides the applications with the required
   deliverables, which include application-layer encryption/
   authentication, symmetric/asymmetric keys, decrypted plaintext and
   calculated signatures.  For simplicity, the term 'keys' is used here
   to refer to all these deliverables.

   The following diagram shows the method of integrating key
   distribution into the remote attestation interaction Passport Model
   process:

            .------------.
            |            | 2. Compare Evidence
            |  Verifier  | against appraisal policy
            |            |
            '--------+---'
                ^    |
  1. Evidence + |    | 3. Attestation
  Attester's    |    | Result + Attester's identity
  identity      |    v
            .---+--------.                .-------------.
            |            +--------------->|   Relying   | 5. Compare Attestation
            |  Attester  |4. Attestation  |    Party    | Result against
            |            |   Result +     |    & KMS    | appraisal policy
            '------------' Attester's     '-------------' + Distribute Keys
                           identity                         with Attester's public key

   Figure 1: Public Cloud KMS Key Distribution Integrated Scheme on
                        Passport Model of RATS






Xia, et al.               Expires 23 April 2026                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft      RATS Key Negotiation Integration        October 2025


   In the standard remote attestation process described above, the
   Attester, which is an application in TEE, can request the Attester's
   application layer keys after providing its attestation result to the
   KMS.  By including the attester's identity (raw public key or
   certificate) in the messages throughout the remote attestation
   process and having the attester (using its attestation evidence
   signing key) and verifier (using its attestation result signing key)
   endorse and sign it, a key binding mechanism between the attester's
   attestation result and its identity is implemented.  Subsequently,
   the KMS can use the identity's public key for key distribution,
   ensuring that the keys are distributed to the correct attester,
   thereby eliminating the risk of diversion attacks.  During key
   rotation, the KMS can proactively trigger this process to update and
   rotate the new and old keys.

   Overall, the above approach integrates end-to-end key distribution
   correctly into the remote attestation process, achieving automation
   of key distribution and higher security guarantees based on the
   security of attester endpoint.

2.2.  Integrating E2E Key Negotiation Into Remote Attestation

   The current main implementation mechanism for E2E key negotiation is
   Diffie-Hellman Ephemeral (DHE) and Elliptic-Curve Diffie-Hellman
   Ephemeral (ECDHE).  Taking ECDHE as an example, the method of
   integrating it into remote attestation passport Model process is
   shown in the following figure:

           .------------.
           |            | 4. Compare Evidence
           |  Verifier  | against appraisal policy
           |            |
           '--------+---'
 3. Evidence + ^    |
    pubS +     |    |5. Attestation
    Attester's |    | Result + pubS + Attester's identity
    identity   |    v     1. Attestation
          .---+--------. Request + pubC.-------------.
          |  Attester  <-------------->|   Relying   | 7. Compare Attestation
          |  & Server  | 6.Attestation |    Party    | Result against
          |            | Result        |    & Client | appraisal policy
          '------------' + pubS        '-------------' + SK = privC * pubS
  2. SK = privS * pubC   + Attester's                  + store the mapping of SK
                           identity                      with Attester's identity
SK：Symmetric Key
(privC,pubC): Client's ECDHE key pair
(privS,pubS): Server's ECDHE key pair




Xia, et al.               Expires 23 April 2026                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft      RATS Key Negotiation Integration        October 2025


  Figure 2: Integrating E2E Key Negotiation Into Remote Attestation
                      Passport Model Interaction

   In the standard remote attestation process described above,the Client
   includes the public key (pubC) from its dynamically generated ECDHE
   key pair (privC, pubC) in the remote attestation request message
   while retaining the private key (privC).  Upon receiving pubC, the
   Server can compute the symmetric key SK using its private key privS
   from its dynamically generated ECDHE key pair (privS, pubS).  At the
   same time, by including the Attester's identity (raw public key or
   certificate) in all subsequent messages of the remote attestation
   process and having the Attester (using its attestation evidence
   signing key) and Verifier (using its attestation result signing key)
   endorse and sign it, a key binding mechanism between the Attester's
   attestation result and its identity is implemented, thereby
   eliminating the risk of diversion attacks.  After completing the
   remote attestation with the Verifier, the Server includes its pubS in
   the attestation result returned to the Client.  Once the Client has
   verified the attestation result, it can compute the symmetric key SK
   using pubS and its own private key privC, thereby completing both the
   remote attestation and the ECDHE key agreement.  The Client can also
   record the relationship between the generated SK and the
   corresponding Attester's identity.  This ensures that the SK is
   subsequently used to establish a secure protocol connection with an
   Attester possessing the correct identity.  Some of the metadata
   negotiated alongside the key exchange materials includes the session
   ID, nonce and algorithm.

   Overall, the above approach integrates end-to-end key negotiation
   correctly into the remote attestation process, achieving automation
   of key negotiation and higher security guarantees based on the
   security of attester endpoint.

2.3.  Enterprise Customer Key Distribution to Public Cloud Into Remote
      Attestation

   Enterprises need to deploy data assets, such as data, applications
   and systems, on public clouds.  Some of these assets are critical to
   the enterprise, such as large private model applications.  It is
   therefore essential to ensure the trustworthiness and security of the
   operating environment.  The process involves first uploading the
   encrypted data assets to the cloud environment and then performing
   remote attestation on the operating environment.  Once the operating
   environment passes the security verification, the decryption key is
   distributed to it for loading and running the decrypted data assets.
   In fact, the key here can also be generalized to refer to the
   decrypted plaintext and the calculated signatures provided by
   Enterprise KMS.  This scenario is similar to the public cloud KMS key



Xia, et al.               Expires 23 April 2026                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft      RATS Key Negotiation Integration        October 2025


   distribution scenario, except that the public cloud is no longer
   responsible for key distribution.  Instead, the enterprise manages
   the keys itself and completes the key distribution after passing the
   security verification through remote attestation.  The method is
   illustrated in the following diagram:

            .------------.
            |            | 2. Compare Evidence
            |  Verifier  | against appraisal policy
            |            |
            '--------+---'
                ^    |
  1. Evidence + |    | 3. Attestation
  Attester's    |    | Result + Attester's identity
  identity      |    v
            .---+--------.                .-------------.
            |            +--------------->|Relying Party| 5. Compare Attestation
            |  Attester  |4. Attestation  |& Enterprise | Result against
            |            |   Result +     |      KMS    | appraisal policy
            '------------' Attester's     '-------------' + Distribute Keys
                           identity                         with Attester's public key

   Figure 3: Enterprise KMS Key Distribution Integrated with Remote
                Attestation Passport Model Interaction

   By including the Attester's identity (raw public key or certificate)
   in the messages throughout the remote attestation process and having
   the Attester (using its attestation evidence signing key) and
   Verifier (using its attestation result signing key) endorse and sign
   it, a key binding mechanism between the attester's attestation result
   and its identity is implemented.  Subsequently, the enterprise KMS
   can use the identity's public key for key distribution, ensuring that
   the keys are distributed to the correct attester, thereby eliminating
   the risk of diversion attacks.  During key rotation, the enterprise
   KMS can proactively trigger this process to update and rotate of the
   new and old keys.

   Overall, the above approach integrates end-to-end key distribution
   correctly into the remote attestation process, achieving automation
   of key distribution and higher security guarantees based on the
   security of attester endpoint.

3.  Remote Attestation Protocol and Message Extensions

   This section describes how to extend RATS protocol and message to
   incorporate key negotiation into the remote attestation process.

   TBD



Xia, et al.               Expires 23 April 2026                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft      RATS Key Negotiation Integration        October 2025


4.  Implementation Status

   // RFC Editor: please remove this section prior to publication.  This
   section records the status of known implementations of the protocol
   defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
   Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
   The description of implementations in this section is intended to
   assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
   RFCs.  Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
   here does not imply endorsement by the IETF.  Furthermore, no effort
   has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
   supplied by IETF contributors.  This is not intended as, and must not
   be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
   features.  Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
   exist.

   According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working
   groupsto assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit
   of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable
   experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols
   more mature.  It is up to the individual working groups to use this
   information as they see fit".

4.1.  Trustee

   Responsible Organisation: Trustee (open source project within the
   Confidential Containers).

   Location: https://github.com/confidential-containers/trustee

   Description: Trustee contains tools and components for attesting
   confidential guests and providing secrets to them.  Collectively,
   these components are known as Trustee.  Trustee typically operates on
   behalf of the guest owner and interact remotely with guest
   components.  Trustee components include: - Key Broker Service: The
   KBS is a server that facilitates remote attestation and secret
   delivery.  Its role is similar to that of the Relying Party in the
   RATS model; - Attestation Service: The AS verifies TEE evidence.  In
   the RATS model this is a Verifier; - Reference Value Provider
   Service: The RVPS manages reference values used to verify TEE
   evidence; - KBS Client Tool: This is a simple tool which can be used
   to test or configure the KBS and AS.

   There are two main ways to deploy Trustee: with Docker Compose, on
   Kubernetes.

   Level of Maturity: This is a proof-of-concept prototype
   implementation.



Xia, et al.               Expires 23 April 2026                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft      RATS Key Negotiation Integration        October 2025


   License: Apache-2.0.

   Coverage: This implementation covers most of the aspects of the use
   case 1 and 3 of this draft.

   Contact: Ding Ma, xynnn@linux.alibaba.com

5.  Security Considerations

   Evidence should be cryptographically bound to the identifier provided
   to the machine by the infrastructure provider to prevent diversion
   attacks [Meeting-122-TLS-Slides].

6.  Privacy Considerations

   TBD

7.  Optimization Considerations

   For the first time connection between the Attester and the Relying
   Party, embedding the raw public key/certificate inside the
   Attestation Result is necessary as it simplifies the procedure to
   delivery of the raw pulbic key/cerficate from the Attester.  For the
   latter connection between this Atterster and the Relying Party, if
   the raw public key/certificate remains unchanged, the Attester May
   choose to use the hash of its raw public key/cerficate instead for
   the Evidence/Attestation Result between itself and the Verifier, and
   only forward the Attestation Result that contains the hash of hash of
   its raw public key/cerficate.  At the Relying Party side, it compares
   this hash with the hash of the local cached raw public key/cerficate,
   and use the corresponding raw public key/cerficate for this session
   when it matches.  This will reduce the payload carried by the
   Evidence and the Attestation Result.

8.  IANA Considerations

   TBD

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.





Xia, et al.               Expires 23 April 2026                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft      RATS Key Negotiation Integration        October 2025


   [RFC7942]  Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
              Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
              RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8784]  Fluhrer, S., Kampanakis, P., McGrew, D., and V. Smyslov,
              "Mixing Preshared Keys in the Internet Key Exchange
              Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) for Post-quantum Security",
              RFC 8784, DOI 10.17487/RFC8784, June 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8784>.

9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.fossati-tls-attestation]
              Tschofenig, H., Sheffer, Y., Howard, P., Mihalcea, I.,
              Deshpande, Y., Niemi, A., and T. Fossati, "Using
              Attestation in Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram
              Transport Layer Security (DTLS)", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-fossati-tls-attestation-09, 30 April
              2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
              fossati-tls-attestation-09>.

   [I-D.fossati-tls-exported-attestation]
              Fossati, T., Sardar, M. U., Reddy.K, T., Sheffer, Y.,
              Tschofenig, H., and I. Mihalcea, "Remote Attestation with
              Exported Authenticators", Work in Progress, Internet-
              Draft, draft-fossati-tls-exported-attestation-02, 3 July
              2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
              fossati-tls-exported-attestation-02>.

   [I-D.ietf-lamps-csr-attestation]
              Ounsworth, M., Tschofenig, H., Birkholz, H., Wiseman, M.,
              and N. Smith, "Use of Remote Attestation with
              Certification Signing Requests", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lamps-csr-attestation-21, 5
              October 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
              draft-ietf-lamps-csr-attestation-21>.

   [I-D.ietf-tls-hybrid-design]
              Stebila, D., Fluhrer, S., and S. Gueron, "Hybrid key
              exchange in TLS 1.3", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design-16, 7 September 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tls-
              hybrid-design-16>.



Xia, et al.               Expires 23 April 2026                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft      RATS Key Negotiation Integration        October 2025


   [Meeting-122-TLS-Slides]
              Sardar, M. U., Moustafa, M., and T. Aura, "Identity Crisis
              in Attested TLS for Confidential Computing", March 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/122/materials/
              slides-122-tls-identity-crisis-00>.

Authors' Addresses

   Liang Xia
   Huawei Technologies
   Email: frank.xialiang@huawei.com


   Weiyu Jiang
   Huawei Technologies
   Email: jiangweiyu1@huawei.com


   Muhammad Usama Sardar
   TU Dresden
   Email: muhammad_usama.sardar@tu-dresden.de


   Henk Birkholz
   Fraunhofer SIT
   Email: henk.birkholz@ietf.contact


   Jun Zhang
   Huawei Technologies France S.A.S.U.
   Email: junzhang1@huawei.com


   Houda Labiod
   Huawei Technologies France S.A.S.U.
   Email: houda.labiod@huawei.com















Xia, et al.               Expires 23 April 2026                [Page 13]
