



anima Working Group                                        M. Richardson
Internet-Draft                                  Sandelman Software Works
Intended status: Standards Track                            25 July 2025
Expires: 26 January 2026


                    Taxonomy of Composite Attesters
              draft-richardson-rats-composite-attesters-00

Abstract

   This document further refines different kinds of RFC 9334 Composite
   Attesters.

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-richardson-rats-composite-
   attesters/.

   Discussion of this document takes place on the rats 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/richardson/rats-composite-attesters.

Status of This Memo

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

   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 26 January 2026.





Richardson               Expires 26 January 2026                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                 composites                      July 2025


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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Caveats of Current Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.3.  Level 0 Composite Attester  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.4.  Level 1 Composite Attester  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.5.  Level 2 Composite/Hybrid Attester . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.6.  Level 3B Composite Background-Check Attester  . . . . . .   5
     1.7.  Level 3P Composite Passport-Model Attester  . . . . . . .   5
   2.  Attestation Results as Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction

   This document clarifies and extends the meaning of Composite Attester
   from [RFC9334], Section 3.3.

1.1.  Caveats of Current Definition

   [RFC9334], Section 3.3 says:

   ``` A composite device is an entity composed of multiple sub-entities
   such that its trustworthiness has to be determined by the appraisal
   of all these sub-entities.




Richardson               Expires 26 January 2026                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                 composites                      July 2025


   Each sub-entity has at least one Attesting Environment collecting the
   Claims from at least one Target Environment.  Then, this sub-entity
   generates Evidence about its trustworthiness; therefore, each sub-
   entity can be called an "Attester".  Among all the Attesters, there
   may be only some that have the ability to communicate with the
   Verifier while others do not. ```

   In this description, it was left vague as to whether or not each
   Attesting Environment signs the Evidence that it generates, and
   whether or not the Evidence is evaluated by a Verifier operated by
   the Lead Attester, or if it's passed by the Lead Attester along with
   the Evidence from the Lead Target Environment.

1.2.  Terminology

   Lead Attester:  This term is from RFC9334, and includes the (Lead)
      Attesting Environment, and the (Lead) Target Environment.

   Target Environment:  This term is from RFC9334, this refers to the
      environment for which evidence is gathered.

   Attesting Environment:  This term is from RFC9334, this refers to the
      thing which gathers the evidence.

   Component:  This is the pieces which are attached to the Lead
      Attester.  There are one to many of these, typically each with
      their own application specific processor.

   Component Attesting Environment:  This term is new, and refers to an
      Attesting Environment residing inside a component of the whole.

   Component Target Environment:  This term is new, and refers to an
      environment for which evidence is collected.

1.3.  Level 0 Composite Attester

   In this first, somewhat degernerate scenario, the Lead Attester has
   access to the entire memory/environment of all of the components.
   Examples of situations like this include classic PCI-buses, ISA-
   buses, VME, S100/IEEE 696-1983.  In these situations, secondary
   components might not boot on their own.  (It might even be that the
   lead environment (the chassis) will place code into RAM for these
   systems, with no ROM at all) In this case, it is possible for the
   Lead Attesting Environment to collect Evidence about each of the
   components without the components having to have their own Attesting
   Environment.





Richardson               Expires 26 January 2026                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                 composites                      July 2025


   At some level, all of these components can be considered part of the
   same system.  In the classic PCI or ISA environment, the components
   are hard drive interfaces, video interfaces, and network interfaces.
   For many such systems considering the system to be a composite is
   unncessary additional complexity.

   The benefit of applying the composite mechanism in this case is that
   it is no longer necessary to consider the exhaustive combinatorics of
   all possible components being attached to the lead attester: it is
   already the case the reference values for a target environment may
   change depending upon how much memory is installed.

   In this Level 0 Composite Attester, the evidence gathered about the
   components would be included in the Lead Attester's signed Evidence
   (such as an EAT), as sub-components in UCCS form [RFC9781].  The
   signature from the Lead Attester applies to all the Evidence, but the
   Verifier can evaluate each component separately.

   More modern buses like PCIe, InfiniBand, Thunderbolt, DisplayPort,
   USB, Firewire and others do not provided direct electrical access to
   target component system memory.  They are serialized versions of the
   old I/O buses, using a protocol akin to a network.  They require non-
   trivial deserialization at eacn end, requiring configuration via
   firmware that itself might not be trustworthy.  A system with such an
   interface would be a level 1.

1.4.  Level 1 Composite Attester

   RFC 9334 gives the following example:

   For example, a carrier-grade router consists of a chassis and
   multiple slots.  The trustworthiness of the router depends on all its
   slots' trustworthiness.  Each slot has an Attesting Environment, such
   as a TEE, collecting the Claims of its boot process, after which it
   generates Evidence from the Claims.

   As described in this case, each component or slot produces it's own
   signed Evidence.  The Lead Attester simply relays the Evidence along
   with its own:

   Among these slots, only a "main" slot can communicate with the
   Verifier while other slots cannot.  However, other slots can
   communicate with the main slot by the links between them inside the
   router.  The main slot collects the Evidence of other slots, produces
   the final Evidence of the whole router, and conveys the final
   Evidence to the Verifier.  Therefore, the router is a composite
   device, each slot is an Attester, and the main slot is the lead
   Attester.



Richardson               Expires 26 January 2026                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                 composites                      July 2025


   Note that the Lead Attester does _not_ evaluate the evidence, and
   does not run its own Verifier.

1.5.  Level 2 Composite/Hybrid Attester

   In this scenario, the Components relay their Evidence to the Lead
   Attester.  The Lead Attester operates a Verifier itself.  It
   evaluates the Components' Evidence against Reference Values,
   Endorsements, etc. producing _Attestation Results_ These Attestation
   Results (or their selectively disclosed version: SD-CWT/SD-JWT) are
   then included as part of the Lead Attester's Evidence to it's
   Verifier.

   The Verifier's signing credentials may be part of the same Attesting
   Environment as the Evidence signing credential used by the Lead
   Attesting environment.  Or they could be in a different environment,
   such as in a different TEE.

1.6.  Level 3B Composite Background-Check Attester

   In this scenario, the Components relay their Evidence to the Lead
   Attester.  The Lead Attester does _not_ operates a Verifier itself.

   Instead, the Lead Attester, conveys the Evidence to the Lead Verifier
   along with it's own Evidence.  The Component Evidence is not placed
   within the Lead Attester's Evidence (DEBATE).  The Lead Attester
   needs to communicate how each component is attached, and that would
   be within its Evidence.

   The Lead Verifier, acting a Relying Party, connects to Verifiers
   capable of evaluating the Component Evidence, retrieving Attestation
   Results from those Verifiers as part of evaluating the Lead Attester.

   This case is similar to Level 1, however the integration of the
   component attestation results in level 1 is not included in the
   Evidence, while in this case, it is.

1.7.  Level 3P Composite Passport-Model Attester

   In this scenario, the Components relay their Evidence to the Lead
   Attester.  The Lead Attester does _not_ operates a Verifier itself.
   Instead, the Lead Attester, acting as a Presenter (term To-Be-
   Defined), connects to an appropriate Verifier, in passport mode.  It
   retrieves an Attestation Result from the Verifier, which it then
   includes within the Evidence that the Lead Attester produces.






Richardson               Expires 26 January 2026                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                 composites                      July 2025


   The Lead Attester's Verifier considers that the Component during it's
   assessment.  It needs to consider if the component has been assessed
   by a Verifier it trusts, if the component is appropriately connected
   to the Lead Attester, and if there are an appropriate number of such
   components.

   For instance, when accessing a vehicle such as a car, where each tire
   is it's own component, then a car with three wheels is not
   trusthworthy.  Most cars should have four wheels.  A car with five
   wheels might be acceptable, if at least one wheel is installed into
   the "spare" holder.  (And, it may be of concern if the spare is flat,
   but the car can still be operated)

   A more typical digital use case would involve a main CPU with a
   number of attached specialized intelligent components that contain
   their own firmware, such as Graphical Processors (GPU), Network
   Processors (NPU).

2.  Attestation Results as Evidence

   In cases 2, 3B and 3P Attestation Results are included as Evidence.
   This results in a Verifier that must evaluate these results.  It must
   be able to validate the signatures on the Evidence.

   This creates _stacked_ Remote Attestation.  This is very much
   different and _distinct_ from [RFC9334], Section 3.2 Layered
   Attestation.

   Layered Attestion produces a _single_ set of Evidence, with claims
   about different layers.

3.  Privacy Considerations

   YYY

4.  Security Considerations

   ZZZ

5.  IANA Considerations

6.  Acknowledgements

   Hello.







Richardson               Expires 26 January 2026                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                 composites                      July 2025


7.  Changelog

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [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/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC9334]  Birkholz, H., Thaler, D., Richardson, M., Smith, N., and
              W. Pan, "Remote ATtestation procedureS (RATS)
              Architecture", RFC 9334, DOI 10.17487/RFC9334, January
              2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9334>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC9781]  Birkholz, H., O'Donoghue, J., Cam-Winget, N., and C.
              Bormann, "A Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)
              Tag for Unprotected CBOR Web Token Claims Sets (UCCS)",
              RFC 9781, DOI 10.17487/RFC9781, May 2025,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9781>.

Author's Address

   Michael Richardson
   Sandelman Software Works
   Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca























Richardson               Expires 26 January 2026                [Page 7]
