Thanks, Ludwig. Note that last paragraph of the new Operational Considerations
section at
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-03#section-6
addresses this issue. In particular, the last sentence of the section talks
about the need to keep keys used in different contexts separate if there is
otherwise any chance of confusion.
I'll also note that for the constrained environments that ACE is addressing, I
expect that deployments with exactly one PoP key to be predominant use case.
In this use case, such confusion is impossible in the first place.
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Ace <ace-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Ludwig Seitz
Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2018 2:33 AM
To: 'ace' <ace@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ace] Key IDs ... RE: WGLC on
draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-02
On 2018-07-03 11:31, Ludwig Seitz wrote:
>
> 6. Client B gets 2 from AS bound via the cnf claim to KID="A"
>
This should of course read:
Client B gets T2 from AS ...
/Ludwig
--
Ludwig Seitz, PhD
Security Lab, RISE SICS
Phone +46(0)70-349 92 51
_______________________________________________
Ace mailing list
Ace@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
_______________________________________________
Ace mailing list
Ace@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
