Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> 2) <!-- [rfced] The sentence below seems to be missing a verb (such as designed, used, etc.). May we rephrase the sentence as follows to improve readability? Original: The Arm Platform Security Architecture (PSA) is a family of hardware and firmware security specifications, as well as open-source reference implementations, to help device makers and chip manufacturers build best-practice security into products. Perhaps: The Arm Platform Security Architecture (PSA) is a family of hardware and firmware security specifications, as well as open-source reference implementations, that is designed to help device makers and chip manufacturers build best-practice security into products. --> 3) <!-- [rfced] Is the Application domain specified as the security domain outside the SPE in the definition for NSPE? Please clarify. Original: NSPE: Non Secure Processing Environment, the security domain outside of the SPE, the Application domain, typically containing the application firmware, real-time operating systems, applications and general hardware. Perhaps: Non-Secure Processing Environment (NSPE): The security domain (Application domain) outside of the SPE that typically contains the application firmware, real-time operating systems, applications, and general hardware. --> 4) <!-- [rfced] Is "them" and "it" referring to "PSA claims" in this sentence? Original: The Attesting Environment is responsible for collecting the information to be represented in PSA claims and to assemble them into Evidence. It is made of two cooperating components: Perhaps: The Attesting Environment is responsible for collecting the information to be represented in PSA claims and assembling them into Evidence. PSA claims are made of two cooperating components: --> 5) <!-- [rfced] May we rephrase the following sentence for clarity? Original: It MUST be represented as a string made of nineteen numeric characters: a thirteen-digit [EAN-13], followed by a dash "-", followed by the five-digit versioning information described in [PSA-Cert-Guide]. Perhaps: It MUST be represented as a string made of nineteen numeric characters: a thirteen-digit [EAN-13], followed by a dash "-", followed by the five-digit versioning information described in [PSA-Cert-Guide]. --> 6) <!-- [rfced] We have updated the following sentence for clarity. Please review and let us know any objections. Original: The following claims are part of the PSA token (and therefore still Evidence) but aim to help receivers, including relying parties, with the processing of the received attestation Evidence. Current: The following claims are part of the PSA token (and are therefore still Evidence). However, they aim to help receivers, including Relying parties, with the processing of the received attestation Evidence. --> 7) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this document should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container for content that is semantically less important or tangential to the content that surrounds it" (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside). --> 8) <!-- [rfced] We have updated "certs" in the sentence below to "certifications" for consistency. The use of "certs" has also been updated throughout the rest of the document. Please let us know any objections. Original: Certified public keys require the manufacturer to run the certification authority (CA) that issues X.509 certs for the IAKs. Current: Certified public keys require the manufacturer to run the certification authority (CA) that issues X.509 certifications for the IAKs. --> 9) <!-- [rfced] To clarify, are the reference values described below registered with the Verifier? Or are the claims in this profile compared to reference values in addition to being registered with the Verifier? Original: In addition, the Verifier will typically operate a policy where values of some of the claims in this profile can be compared to reference values, registered with the Verifier for a given deployment, in order to confirm that the device is endorsed by the manufacturer supply chain. Perhaps: In addition, the Verifier will typically operate a policy where values of some of the claims in this profile can be compared to reference values and registered with the Verifier for a given deployment in order to confirm that the device is endorsed by the manufacturer supply chain. Or: In addition, the Verifier will typically operate a policy where values of some of the claims in this profile can be compared to reference values that are registered with the Verifier for a given deployment in order to confirm that the device is endorsed by the manufacturer supply chain. --> 10) <!-- [rfced] Should "verification key material to the Verifier" be rewritten as follows for clarity? Original: [PSA-Endorsements] defines a protocol based on the [RATS-CoRIM] data model that can be used to convey PSA Endorsements, Reference Values and verification key material to the Verifier. Perhaps: [PSA-Endorsements] defines a protocol based on the data model described in [RATS-CoRIM] that can be used to convey PSA Endorsements and Reference Values, and to verify key material to the Verifier. --> 11) <!-- [rfced] Reference-related questions: a) The following reference appears to be a code repository that was last updated in August 2023. "iat-verifier" only appears on the page as a link; is the goal to point readers to the iat-verifier tree? Please review. Currently, we have updated the document as described below to follow the RFC style guidance (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#ref_repo). We may make more updates depending on the answer to the question above. Original: [IAT-VERIFIER] Linaro, "iat-verifier", 2023, <https://git.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/tf-m-tools.git/tree/ iat-verifier>. Current: [IAT-VERIFIER] Trusted Firmware, "iat-verifier", commit: 0b49b00195b7733d6fe74e8f42ed4d7b81242801, 18 August 2023, <https://git.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/tf-m-tools.git/tree/iat-verifier>. b) Please review the following reference. The URL provided for [PSA] redirects to the following link: https://www.arm.com/architecture/security-features. We found https://developer.arm.com/documentation/101892/0100/Security-Platform-Security-Architecture?lang=en (please note that the actual URL contains three hyphens between "/Security" and "Platform", but XML comments break when more than two hyphens appear consecutively in a URL). If there are no objections, we will update the reference as follows. Original: [PSA] Arm, "Platform Security Architecture Resources", 2022, <https://developer.arm.com/architectures/security- architectures/platform-security-architecture/ documentation>. Perhaps: [PSA] Arm, "Security - Platform Security Architecture", <https://developer.arm.com/architectures/security- architectures/platform-security-architecture/ documentation>. c) Note that we have updated the title of the following reference, as the title of the webpage appears to have changed since 2022. If another page is preferred, please let us know. Original: [PSACertified] PSA Certified, "PSA Certified IoT Security Framework", 2022, <https://psacertified.org>. Current: [PSACertified] PSA Certified, "Expert IoT Security Framework and Certification", <https://psacertified.org>. d) It appears as though the goal is to refer to the most recent I-D prior to deprecation of the "private use range" values. As such, we have updated the reference to refer to version -08. Please review and let us know if any updates are needed. Original: [PSA-OLD] Tschofenig, H., Frost, S., Brossard, M., Shaw, A. L., and T. Fossati, "Arm's Platform Security Architecture (PSA) Attestation Token", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-tschofenig-rats-psa-token-07, 1 February 2021, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-tschofenig- rats-psa-token-07>. --> 12) <!-- [rfced] We have updated the reference for [STD96] to include entries for both of the RFCs (9052 and 9338) that comprise the STD. Please review consider whether the text should specifically refer to RFC 9052 only or if the current update is acceptable. Original: COSE_Sign1 is used for digital signatures and COSE_Mac0 for MACs, as defined in the COSE specification [STD96]. [STD96] Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Structures and Process", STD 96, RFC 9052, DOI 10.17487/RFC9052, August 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9052>. Current: COSE_Sign1 is used for digital signatures and COSE_Mac0 for MACs as defined in the COSE specification [STD96]. [STD96] Internet Standard 96, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std96>. At the time of writing, this STD comprises the following: Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Structures and Process", STD 96, RFC 9052, DOI 10.17487/RFC9052, August 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9052>. Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Countersignatures", STD 96, RFC 9338, DOI 10.17487/RFC9338, December 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9338>. Perhaps: COSE_Sign1 is used for digital signatures and COSE_Mac0 for MACs as defined in the COSE specification [RFC9052]. --> 13) <!-- [rfced] Please review each artwork element and let us know if any should be marked as sourcecode (or another element) instead. In addition, review the updates to sourcecode with type="cddl". If <sourcecode> is used elsewhere in the document, please consider whether the type should be set. The current list of preferred values for "type" is available at <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types>. If the current list does not contain an applicable type, feel free to suggest additions for consideration. Note that it is also acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set. --> 14) <!-- [rfced] Terminology a) We note that <tt> tags are used with a few terms throughout the document. We also note that these terms also appear without <tt> tags. Please consider whether updates are needed for consistency. The pattern of use is unclear to us. <tt>bootseed</tt> vs. bootseed <tt>configuration</tt> vs. configuration <tt>eat_profile</tt> vs. eat_profile <tt>hardware</tt> vs. hardware <tt>nonce</tt> vs. nonce b) Please let us know how we should update the following terms for consistency throughout the document. EAT nonce claim vs. nonce claim vs. Nonce claim Arm's Platform Security Architecture vs. The Arm Platform Security Architecture Boot Seed vs. bootseed claims-set vs. claims sets (Appendix A) PSA-token claims-set vs. PSA claims-set (Appendix A) --> 15) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for abbreviations upon first use per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). The abbreviated form of each term is used thereafter. Please review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. --> 16) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should still be reviewed as a best practice. --> Thank you. RFC Editor On May 15, 2025, at 4:45 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/05/15 RFC Author(s): -------------- Instructions for Completing AUTH48 Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing your approval. Planning your review --------------------- Please review the following aspects of your document: * RFC Editor questions Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as follows: <!-- [rfced] ... --> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. * Changes submitted by coauthors Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. * Content Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) - contact information - references * Copyright notices and legends Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). * Semantic markup Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. * Formatted output Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. Submitting changes ------------------ To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties include: * your coauthors * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team) * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion list: * More info: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc * The archive itself: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and its addition will be noted at the top of the message. You may submit your changes in one of two ways: An update to the provided XML file — OR — An explicit list of changes in this format Section # (or indicate Global) OLD: old text NEW: new text You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit list of changes, as either form is sufficient. We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. Approving for publication -------------------------- To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. Files ----- The files are available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9783.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9783.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9783.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9783.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9783-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9783-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9783-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9783 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC 9783 (draft-tschofenig-rats-psa-token-24) Title : Arm's Platform Security Architecture (PSA) Attestation Token Author(s) : H. Tschofenig, S. Frost, M. Brossard, A. Shaw, T. Fossati WG Chair(s) : Area Director(s) : -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
