> -----Original Message----- > From: Francesca Palombini <francesca.palomb...@ericsson.com> > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 6:26 AM > To: Jim Schaad <i...@augustcellars.com>; draft-ietf-ace-oscore- > prof...@ietf.org > Cc: ace@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Shepard comments on draft-ietf-ace-oscore-profile > > Hi Jim, > > Inline. > > Thanks, > Francesca > > On 31/01/2019, 01:34, "Jim Schaad" <i...@augustcellars.com> wrote: > > > 1. Please update the text for MUST/SHOULD/MAY to include the language > from > RFC 8174. > > FP: Right, thanks. Updated now in the github. > > 2. Section 3.2.1 - What to do is clear if a field is not missing. What > is > the correct behavior if a field is present that the client and/or resource > server does not recognize. Is this a fatal error or is it sufficient that > they may not behave the same? > > FP: Assuming you are referring to fields missing in the > OSCORE_Security_Context, (please correct me otherwise) this is a good > point. We currently do not define what happens if the security context has > unrecognized parameters. We don't foresee this happening, as the AS > should know what the client and RS implement. However, to cover this case > (bad implementation or something went wrong), to be on the safe side, we > propose that there is a fatal error in that case. In fact, we don't know what > additional parameters might be registered in the OSCORE_Security_Context, > and although they could be "risk-free" (as in optional additional information > non-necessary for the security context derivation), they could also be input > to the key derivation for example, in which case the endpoint non- > recognizing them would end up storing a "wrong" security context. What do > you think?
Sounds good. I had a vague thought that perhaps some of the group items might be added in the future but no hard items to add. Jim > > Jim > > > _______________________________________________ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
