draft-ietf-rats-yang-tpm-charra-10.txt		draft-ietf-rats-yang-tpm-charra-11.txt
	RATS Working Group H. Birkholz		RATS Working Group H. Birkholz
	Internet-Draft M. Eckel		Internet-Draft M. Eckel
	Intended status: Standards Track Fraunhofer SIT		Intended status: Standards Track Fraunhofer SIT
	Expires: 13 February 2022 S. Bhandari		Expires: 27 February 2022 S. Bhandari
	ThoughtSpot		ThoughtSpot
	E. Voit		E. Voit
	B. Sulzen		B. Sulzen
	Cisco		Cisco
	L. Xia		L. Xia
	Huawei		Huawei
	T. Laffey		T. Laffey
	HPE		HPE
	G. Fedorkow		G. Fedorkow
	Juniper		Juniper
	12 August 2021		26 August 2021
	A YANG Data Model for Challenge-Response-based Remote Attestation		A YANG Data Model for Challenge-Response-based Remote Attestation
	Procedures using TPMs		Procedures using TPMs
	draft-ietf-rats-yang-tpm-charra-10		draft-ietf-rats-yang-tpm-charra-11
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document defines YANG RPCs and a small number of configuration		This document defines YANG RPCs and a small number of configuration
	nodes required to retrieve attestation evidence about integrity		nodes required to retrieve attestation evidence about integrity
	measurements from a device, following the operational context defined		measurements from a device, following the operational context defined
	in TPM-based Network Device Remote Integrity Verification.		in TPM-based Network Device Remote Integrity Verification.
	Complementary measurement logs are also provided by the YANG RPCs,		Complementary measurement logs are also provided by the YANG RPCs,
	originating from one or more roots of trust for measurement (RTMs).		originating from one or more roots of trust for measurement (RTMs).
	The module defined requires at least one TPM 1.2 or TPM 2.0 as well		The module defined requires at least one TPM 1.2 or TPM 2.0 as well
	skipping to change at page 2, line 4 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 4 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on 13 February 2022.		This Internet-Draft will expire on 27 February 2022.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
	license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.		license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
	Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights		Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
	and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components		and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
	extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text		extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
	as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are		as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
	provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.		provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	1.1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1.1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. The YANG Module for Basic Remote Attestation Procedures . . . 3		2. The YANG Module for Basic Remote Attestation Procedures . . . 4
	2.1. YANG Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2.1. YANG Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.1.1. 'ietf-tpm-remote-attestation' . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2.1.1. 'ietf-tpm-remote-attestation' . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.1.2. 'ietf-tcg-algs' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32		2.1.2. 'ietf-tcg-algs' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
	3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47		3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
	4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47		4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
	5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48		5. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
	6. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48		6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
	7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49		6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
	7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49		6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
	7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	This document is based on the general terminology defined in the		This document is based on the general terminology defined in the
	[I-D.ietf-rats-architecture] and uses the operational context defined		[I-D.ietf-rats-architecture] and uses the operational context defined
	in [I-D.ietf-rats-tpm-based-network-device-attest] as well as the		in [I-D.ietf-rats-tpm-based-network-device-attest] as well as the
	interaction model and information elements defined in		interaction model and information elements defined in
	[I-D.ietf-rats-reference-interaction-models]. The currently		[I-D.ietf-rats-reference-interaction-models]. The currently
	supported hardware security modules (HSMs) are the Trusted Platform		supported hardware security modules (HSMs) are the Trusted Platform
	Modules (TPMs) [TPM1.2] and [TPM2.0] as specified by the Trusted		Modules (TPMs) [TPM1.2] and [TPM2.0] as specified by the Trusted
	skipping to change at page 5, line 13 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 5 ¶
	+--ro TPM_QUOTE2? binary		+--ro TPM_QUOTE2? binary
	2.1.1.3.2. 'tpm20-challenge-response-attestation'		2.1.1.3.2. 'tpm20-challenge-response-attestation'
	This RPC allows a Verifier to request signed TPM PCRs (_TPM Quote_		This RPC allows a Verifier to request signed TPM PCRs (_TPM Quote_
	operation) from a TPM 2.0 compliant cryptoprocessor. Where the		operation) from a TPM 2.0 compliant cryptoprocessor. Where the
	feature 'TPMs' is active, and one or more 'certificate-name' is not		feature 'TPMs' is active, and one or more 'certificate-name' is not
	provided, all TPM 2.0 compliant cryptoprocessors will respond. A		provided, all TPM 2.0 compliant cryptoprocessors will respond. A
	YANG tree diagram of this RPC is as follows:		YANG tree diagram of this RPC is as follows:
	+---x tpm20-challenge-response-attestation {taa:TPM20}?		+---x tpm20-challenge-response-attestation {taa:tpm}?
	+---w input		+---w input
	| +---w tpm20-attestation-challenge		| +---w tpm20-attestation-challenge
	| +---w nonce-value binary		| +---w nonce-value binary
	| +---w tpm20-pcr-selection* []		| +---w tpm20-pcr-selection* []
	| | +---w TPM20-hash-algo? identityref		| | +---w TPM20-hash-algo? identityref
	| | +---w pcr-index* tpm:pcr		| | +---w pcr-index* tpm:pcr
	| +---w certificate-name* certificate-name-ref {tpm:TPMs}?		| +---w certificate-name* certificate-name-ref {tpm:TPMs}?
	+--ro output		+--ro output
	+--ro tpm20-attestation-response* []		+--ro tpm20-attestation-response* []
	+--ro certificate-name certificate-name-ref		+--ro certificate-name certificate-name-ref
	skipping to change at page 6, line 5 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 5 ¶
	+--ro up-time? uint32		+--ro up-time? uint32
	+--ro unsigned-pcr-values* []		+--ro unsigned-pcr-values* []
	+--ro TPM20-hash-algo? identityref		+--ro TPM20-hash-algo? identityref
	+--ro pcr-values* [pcr-index]		+--ro pcr-values* [pcr-index]
	+--ro pcr-index pcr		+--ro pcr-index pcr
	+--ro pcr-value? binary		+--ro pcr-value? binary
	An example of an RPC challenge requesting PCRs 0-7 from a SHA-256		An example of an RPC challenge requesting PCRs 0-7 from a SHA-256
	bank could look like the following:		bank could look like the following:
	<rpc message-id="101" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">		<rpc message-id="101" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
	<tpm20-challenge-response-attestation>		<tpm20-challenge-response-attestation>
	xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tpm-remote-attestation">		xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tpm-remote-attestation">
	<certificate-name>		<certificate-name>
	(identifier of a TPM signature key with which the Verifier is supposed		(identifier of a TPM signature key with which the Verifier is
	to sign the attestation data)		supposed to sign the attestation data)
	</certificate-name>		</certificate-name>
	<nonce>		<nonce>
	0xe041307208d9f78f5b1bbecd19e2d152ad49de2fc5a7d8dbf769f6b8ffdeab9d		0xe041307208d9f78f5b1bbecd19e2d152ad49de2fc5a7d8dbf769f6b8ffdeab9
	</nonce>		</nonce>
	<tpm20-pcr-selection>		<tpm20-pcr-selection>
	<tpm20-hash-algo		<tpm20-hash-algo
	xmlns:taa="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tcg-algs">		xmlns:taa="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tcg-algs">
	taa:TPM_ALG_SHA256		taa:TPM_ALG_SHA256
	</tpm20-hash-algo>		</tpm20-hash-algo>
	<pcr-index>0</pcr-index>		<pcr-index>0</pcr-index>
	<pcr-index>1</pcr-index>		<pcr-index>1</pcr-index>
	<pcr-index>2</pcr-index>		<pcr-index>2</pcr-index>
	<pcr-index>3</pcr-index>		<pcr-index>3</pcr-index>
	<pcr-index>4</pcr-index>		<pcr-index>4</pcr-index>
	<pcr-index>5</pcr-index>		<pcr-index>5</pcr-index>
	<pcr-index>6</pcr-index>		<pcr-index>6</pcr-index>
	<pcr-index>7</pcr-index>		<pcr-index>7</pcr-index>
	</tpm20-pcr-selection>		</tpm20-pcr-selection>
	</tpm20-challenge-response-attestation>		</tpm20-challenge-response-attestation>
	</rpc>		</rpc>
	A successful response could be formatted as follows:		A successful response could be formatted as follows:
	<rpc-reply message-id="101"		<rpc-reply message-id="101"
	xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">		xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
	<tpm20-attestation-response		<tpm20-attestation-response
	xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tpm-remote-attestation">		xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tpm-remote-attestation">
	<certificate-name		<certificate-name
	xmlns:ks=urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-keystore>		xmlns:ks=urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-keystore>
	ks:(instance of Certificate name in the Keystore)		ks:(instance of Certificate name in the Keystore)
	skipping to change at page 47, line 24 ¶		skipping to change at page 48, line 24 ¶
	}		}
	<CODE ENDS>		<CODE ENDS>
	Note that not all cryptographic functions are required for use by		Note that not all cryptographic functions are required for use by
	"ietf-tpm-remote-attestation.yang". However the full definition of		"ietf-tpm-remote-attestation.yang". However the full definition of
	Table 3 of [TCG-Algos] will allow use by additional YANG		Table 3 of [TCG-Algos] will allow use by additional YANG
	specifications.		specifications.
	3. IANA Considerations		3. IANA Considerations
	This document will include requests to IANA:		This document registers the following namespace URIs in the "ns"
			class of the IETF XML Registry [IANA.xml-registry] as per [RFC3688]:
	To be defined yet. But keeping up with changes to "ietf-tcg-		URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tpm-remote-attestation
	algs.yang" will be necessary.
			Registrant Contact: The IESG.
			XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.
			URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tcg-algs
			Registrant Contact: The IESG.
			XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.
			This document registers the following YANG modules in the "YANG
			Module Names" registry [IANA.yang-parameters] as per Section 14 of
			[RFC6020]:
			Name: ietf-tpm-remote-attestation
			Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tpm-remote-
			attestation
			Prefix: tpm
			Reference: draft-ietf-rats-yang-tpm-charra (RFC form)
			Name: ietf-tcg-algs
			Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tcg-algs
			Prefix: taa
			Reference: draft-ietf-rats-yang-tpm-charra (RFC form)
	4. Security Considerations		4. Security Considerations
	The YANG module specified in this document defines a schema for data		The YANG module specified in this document defines a schema for data
	that is designed to be accessed via network management protocols such		that is designed to be accessed via network management protocols such
	as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]. The lowest NETCONF layer		as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]. The lowest NETCONF layer
	is the secure transport layer, and the mandatory-to-implement secure		is the secure transport layer, and the mandatory-to-implement secure
	transport is Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC6242]. The lowest RESTCONF layer		transport is Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC6242]. The lowest RESTCONF layer
	is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS		is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS
	[RFC8446].		[RFC8446].
	skipping to change at page 48, line 30 ¶		skipping to change at page 50, line 14 ¶
	the certificate is for an active AIK, i. e. the certificate		the certificate is for an active AIK, i. e. the certificate
	provided is able to support Attestation on the targeted TPM 1.2.		provided is able to support Attestation on the targeted TPM 1.2.
	RPC 'tpm20-challenge-response-attestation': It must be verified that		RPC 'tpm20-challenge-response-attestation': It must be verified that
	the certificate is for an active AK, i. e. the certificate		the certificate is for an active AK, i. e. the certificate
	provided is able to support Attestation on the targeted TPM 2.0.		provided is able to support Attestation on the targeted TPM 2.0.
	RPC 'log-retrieval': Pulling lots of logs can chew up system		RPC 'log-retrieval': Pulling lots of logs can chew up system
	resources.		resources.
	5. Acknowledgements		5. Change Log
	Not yet.		Changes from version 08 to version 09:
	6. Change Log		* Minor formatting tweaks for shepherd. IANA registered.
	Changes from version 05 to version 06:		Changes from version 05 to version 06:
	* More YANG Dr comments covered		* More YANG Dr comments covered
	Changes from version 04 to version 05:		Changes from version 04 to version 05:
	* YANG Dr comments covered		* YANG Dr comments covered
	Changes from version 03 to version 04:		Changes from version 03 to version 04:
	skipping to change at page 49, line 45 ¶		skipping to change at page 51, line 31 ¶
	* Relabeled location with compute-node or tpm-name where appropriate		* Relabeled location with compute-node or tpm-name where appropriate
	* Added a valid entity-mib physical-index to compute-node and tpm-		* Added a valid entity-mib physical-index to compute-node and tpm-
	name to map it back to hardware inventory		name to map it back to hardware inventory
	* Relabeled name to tpm_name		* Relabeled name to tpm_name
	* Removed event-string in last-entry		* Removed event-string in last-entry
	7. References		6. References
	7.1. Normative References		6.1. Normative References
	[I-D.ietf-netconf-keystore]		[I-D.ietf-netconf-keystore]
	Watsen, K., "A YANG Data Model for a Keystore", Work in		Watsen, K., "A YANG Data Model for a Keystore", Work in
	Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-netconf-keystore-22,		Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-netconf-keystore-22,
	18 May 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-		18 May 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-
	netconf-keystore-22.txt>.		netconf-keystore-22.txt>.
	[I-D.ietf-rats-architecture]		[I-D.ietf-rats-architecture]
	Birkholz, H., Thaler, D., Richardson, M., Smith, N., and		Birkholz, H., Thaler, D., Richardson, M., Smith, N., and
	W. Pan, "Remote Attestation Procedures Architecture", Work		W. Pan, "Remote Attestation Procedures Architecture", Work
	skipping to change at page 50, line 26 ¶		skipping to change at page 52, line 8 ¶
	ietf-rats-architecture-12.txt>.		ietf-rats-architecture-12.txt>.
	[I-D.ietf-rats-tpm-based-network-device-attest]		[I-D.ietf-rats-tpm-based-network-device-attest]
	Fedorkow, G., Voit, E., and J. Fitzgerald-McKay, "TPM-		Fedorkow, G., Voit, E., and J. Fitzgerald-McKay, "TPM-
	based Network Device Remote Integrity Verification", Work		based Network Device Remote Integrity Verification", Work
	in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rats-tpm-based-		in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rats-tpm-based-
	network-device-attest-08, 26 July 2021,		network-device-attest-08, 26 July 2021,
	<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-rats-tpm-		<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-rats-tpm-
	based-network-device-attest-08.txt>.		based-network-device-attest-08.txt>.
			[IANA.xml-registry]
			IANA, "IETF XML Registry",
			<http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry>.
			[IANA.yang-parameters]
			IANA, "YANG Parameters",
			<http://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters>.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
			[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
			[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
			the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.
	[RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types",		[RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types",
	RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013,		RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991>.
	[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC		[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
	2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,		2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
	May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.		May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
	[RFC8348] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., Dong, J., and D. Romascanu, "A		[RFC8348] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., Dong, J., and D. Romascanu, "A
	YANG Data Model for Hardware Management", RFC 8348,		YANG Data Model for Hardware Management", RFC 8348,
	skipping to change at page 51, line 14 ¶		skipping to change at page 53, line 14 ¶
	[TPM2.0] TCG, ., "TPM 2.0 Library Specification", 15 March 2013,		[TPM2.0] TCG, ., "TPM 2.0 Library Specification", 15 March 2013,
	<https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/resource/tpm-library-		<https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/resource/tpm-library-
	specification/>.		specification/>.
	[TPM2.0-Key]		[TPM2.0-Key]
	TCG, ., "TPM 2.0 Keys for Device Identity and Attestation,		TCG, ., "TPM 2.0 Keys for Device Identity and Attestation,
	Rev10", 14 April 2021, <https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/		Rev10", 14 April 2021, <https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/
	wp-content/uploads/TCG_IWG_DevID_v1r2_02dec2020.pdf>.		wp-content/uploads/TCG_IWG_DevID_v1r2_02dec2020.pdf>.
	7.2. Informative References		6.2. Informative References
	[I-D.ietf-rats-reference-interaction-models]		[I-D.ietf-rats-reference-interaction-models]
	Birkholz, H., Eckel, M., Pan, W., and E. Voit, "Reference		Birkholz, H., Eckel, M., Pan, W., and E. Voit, "Reference
	Interaction Models for Remote Attestation Procedures",		Interaction Models for Remote Attestation Procedures",
	Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rats-		Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rats-
	reference-interaction-models-04, 26 July 2021,		reference-interaction-models-04, 26 July 2021,
	<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-rats-		<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-rats-
	reference-interaction-models-04.txt>.		reference-interaction-models-04.txt>.
	[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,		[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
End of changes. 18 change blocks.
	53 lines changed or deleted		100 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/