>> >> I would generally prefer to avoid the need for deterministic/canonical >> encoding — is there really a need to re-encode the token? > > There is no need to re-encode the token, and I do not expect that this > would happen if the authorization server has used a finite length.
So would we be better off with: info = [ type : tstr, L : uint, access_token: bytes ] Where access_token is the token in original encoding? No need to re-encode the token then. > I am more than happy to get rid of the ordering constraints on CBOR maps > but I am not sure about referencing the -bis. Can we do that at this > stage? Both documents are in IESG processing, specifically: dtls-authorize: AD Evaluation::External Party 7049bis: Publication Requested Potential emergency escape: reference Section 10 of rfc8152bis-struct (which is even further along at IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed). > Note: Up to now, we could even do without a normative reference to RFC 7049. Yes, but that’s cheating (indirect normative reference through 8610). Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace