Thank you Ludwig and Cigdem, I would effectively prefer to have one reference, i.e ace-oauth-authz. I also reviewed the text from ace-oauth-authz and it seems fine. I also guess the text from Cigdem is better, however, ace-oauth-authz provides exceptions for CBOR and CoAP.
OLD "As described in [ace-oauth-authz] the error responses for JSON-based interactions with AS follow RFC6749. When CBOR is used, the interactions MUST implement [ace-oauth-authz]" NEW "As described in [ace-oauth-authz] the error responses for HTTP/JSON-based interactions with AS follow RFC6749. When CBOR or CoAP is used, the interactions MUST implement [ace-oauth-authz]" Yours, Daniel On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 5:27 PM Cigdem Sengul <cigdem.sen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > Ludwig, I agree that the current draft describes specifically for when > CBOR is used. > When CBOR is not used, I have read it as it will act similar to Section 5.2 > of [RFC6749] <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-5.2> as you > have indicated also in the ace-oauth-authz document. > > Therefore, instead of an indirect reference to RFC6749 by referencing > ace-oauth-authz, we used a direct reference to explain what the error > response should be. > > Is this problematic? or confusing? > > I can reword in mqtt_tls draft something like: > "As described in [ace-oauth-authz] the error responses for JSON-based > interactions with AS follow RFC6749. When CBOR is used, the interactions > MUST implement [ace-oauth-authz]" > > Would that help? > > Thanks, > --Cigdem > > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 3:06 AM Daniel Migault <daniel.migault= > 40ericsson....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > >> Hi Ludwig, >> >> Thanks for the feed back. I was raising the issue before it got >> forgotten. , and I must say I did not checked whether it had been addressed >> or not, as I did not remember this had been raised for the ace-oauth-authz >> document. >> >> What you are saying is that the draft has been updated already. I will >> have a closer look at it, and ask mqtt-profile to confirm the current text >> is fine. >> >> Thanks! >> Daniel >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ace <ace-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Ludwig Seitz >> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 10:51 AM >> To: ace@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Ace] comment on draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz-26 >> >> On 21/11/2019 03:29, Daniel Migault wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > This only concerns potential clarification of the text. >> > >> > While reviewing mqtt-profile draft I raised an issue regarding the >> > reference for Oauth [RFC6749] while the remaining of the document >> > references draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz [1]. My reading of >> > draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz section 5.6.3 >> > <https://tools.. >> ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz-26#section-5.6.3>. >> > was the same of the one of mqtt-profile coauthors, that is error >> > mandates the use of CBOR. Discussing this with others it seems a mis >> > interpretation of draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz section 5.6.3 >> > < >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz-26#section-5.6.3> >> [2]. >> > >> > I believe that is nice this is a mis-interpretation, but I would >> > recommend that the text makes it more explicit the use of JSON is >> > permitted. This seems to me a request to clarify the text. >> > >> > Yours, >> > Daniel >> > >> >> I would be happy to add more clarification, but I'm currently at a loss >> of what that would be. Most of the bullets you cited already modify the >> MUSTs with "...when CBOR is used" or something similar to the same effect. >> The idea was to express: You can use the vanilla OAuth interactions based >> on JSON, but if you use CBOR then do it as specified here. >> >> I am happy to take suggestions. >> >> /Ludwig >> >> > [1] >> > """ >> > >> > In the case of an error, the AS returns error responses for HTTP- >> > based interactions as ASCII codes in JSON content, as defined in >> > Section 5.2 of RFC 6749 < >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-5.2> [RFC6749 < >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749>]. >> > >> > """ >> > >> > [2] >> > """ >> > >> > >> > 5.6.3 >> > < >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz-26#section-5.6.3>. >> > Error Response >> > >> > >> > >> > The error responses for CoAP-based interactions with the AS are >> > generally equivalent to the ones for HTTP-based interactions as >> > defined inSection 5.2 of [RFC6749] < >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-5.2>, with the following >> exceptions: >> > >> > o When using CBOR the raw payload before being processed by the >> > communication security protocol MUST be encoded as a CBOR map. >> > >> > o A response code equivalent to the CoAP code 4.00 (Bad Request) >> > MUST be used for all error responses, except for invalid_client >> > where a response code equivalent to the CoAP code 4.01 >> > (Unauthorized) MAY be used under the same conditions as specified >> > inSection 5.2 of [RFC6749] < >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-5.2>. >> > >> > o The Content-Format (for CoAP-based interactions) or media type >> > (for HTTP-based interactions) "application/ace+cbor" MUST be used >> > for the error response. >> > >> > o The parameters "error", "error_description" and "error_uri" MUST >> > be abbreviated using the codes specified in Figure 12, when a >> CBOR >> > encoding is used. >> > >> > o The error code (i.e., value of the "error" parameter) MUST be >> > abbreviated as specified in Figure 10, when a CBOR encoding is >> > used. >> > /------------------------+-------------\ >> > >> > | Name | CBOR Values | >> > |------------------------+-------------| >> > | invalid_request | 1 | >> > | invalid_client | 2 | >> > | invalid_grant | 3 | >> > | unauthorized_client | 4 | >> > | unsupported_grant_type | 5 | >> > | invalid_scope | 6 | >> > | unsupported_pop_key | 7 | >> > | incompatible_profiles | 8 | >> > \------------------------+-------------/ >> > >> > Figure 10: CBOR abbreviations for common error codes >> > >> > In addition to the error responses defined in OAuth 2.0, the >> > following behavior MUST be implemented by the AS: >> > >> > o If the client submits an asymmetric key in the token request that >> > the RS cannot process, the AS MUST reject that request with a >> > response code equivalent to the CoAP code 4..00 (Bad Request) >> > including the error code "unsupported_pop_key" defined in >> > Figure 10. >> > >> > o If the client and the RS it has requested an access token for do >> > not share a common profile, the AS MUST reject that request with >> a >> > response code equivalent to the CoAP code 4..00 (Bad Request) >> > including the error code "incompatible_profiles" defined in >> > Figure 10. >> > >> > """ >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Ace mailing list >> > Ace@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace >> > >> >> >> -- >> Ludwig Seitz, PhD >> Security Lab, RISE >> 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 >
_______________________________________________ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
