Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November)
With "ignoring" tags I also mean that the decoder presents it to the application; where the application then does not do any _additional_ checks on tags (like e.g. their presence or absence). Any use of, or checks on tags as needed for the application are of course to be done in the normal way. In essence my comment is just to enable a way of adding of tags in the future onto today's-tagless-claims, without today's implementations rejecting these future-claims as being malformed/unexpected. If most think that's already covered by the current text then I'm okay with it. Esko -Original Message- From: Ace [mailto:ace-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Carsten Bormann Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 22:59 To: Esko Dijk Cc: Samuel Erdtman ; Mike Jones ; Benjamin Kaduk ; ace@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November) On Dec 11, 2017, at 12:02, Esko Dijk wrote: > > given that a CBOR decoder would normally ignore tags If you are talking about CBOR tags (I’ve lost the context of the current discussion): A generic CBOR decoder would normally present those to the application. Simply ignoring them would not be very helpful. Grüße, Carsten ___ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this email is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original email. ___ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November)
On Dec 11, 2017, at 12:02, Esko Dijk wrote: > > given that a CBOR decoder would normally ignore tags If you are talking about CBOR tags (I’ve lost the context of the current discussion): A generic CBOR decoder would normally present those to the application. Simply ignoring them would not be very helpful. Grüße, Carsten ___ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November)
Esko, Whether a generic encode would automatically skip over tags is going to depend on the data model presented to the user by the parser. I have worked with one where the tags are ignored by the data model unless the user explicitly asks about them. I have worked with another where the tags are explicitly modeled in the result of the parser. There is a node in the resulting tree that is of node type tag with a value. Consider the case of something that could be either a string or an url encoded string. In this case the only difference in the encoding is the tag value. In this case the tag is significant so should not be ignored. I agree with Mike that this additional requirement could be misleading. Jim From: Ace [mailto:ace-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Esko Dijk Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 3:03 AM To: Mike Jones ; Samuel Erdtman Cc: Benjamin Kaduk ; ace@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November) Hello Mike, My intention was to have "no extra code in recipients that verifies absence of tags". I did not intend to propose modification to the CBOR decoder (a generic decoder would skip over i.e. ignore any tags already - which is the right behavior in my view). I don't see how an additional sentence in the spec "MUST ignore tags" can possibly lead to extra code? A generic CBOR decoder will already skip over any tags. And besides these tags are not present because the spec states they must not be used. So there's nothing a receiver would have to do extra or different. The benefit then seemingly comes for free; and this benefit is the potential usage of tags attached to existing claims, for future versions of the spec. But given that a CBOR decoder would normally ignore tags already, I'm also fine with not changing the text if it is confusing for developers. They might think they need to implement something while the requirement actually asks them *not* to implement something. Most developers would not bother to implement such extra checks anyhow. thanks Esko From: Mike Jones [mailto:michael.jo...@microsoft.com] Sent: Friday, December 8, 2017 14:46 To: Esko Dijk mailto:esko.d...@philips.com> >; Samuel Erdtman mailto:sam...@erdtman.se> > Cc: Benjamin Kaduk mailto:ka...@mit.edu> >; ace@ietf.org <mailto:ace@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November) Requiring extra code in recipients to ignore tags that already must not be present would make them needlessly more complicated and hurt interop. It's virtually certain that many implementations will not include this extra code that should never be executed. We shouldn't put developers in the position of deciding whether to add code for a case that already must not occur. -- Mike _ The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this email is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original email. ___ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November)
Hello Mike, My intention was to have "no extra code in recipients that verifies absence of tags". I did not intend to propose modification to the CBOR decoder (a generic decoder would skip over i.e. ignore any tags already - which is the right behavior in my view). I don't see how an additional sentence in the spec "MUST ignore tags" can possibly lead to extra code? A generic CBOR decoder will already skip over any tags. And besides these tags are not present because the spec states they must not be used. So there's nothing a receiver would have to do extra or different. The benefit then seemingly comes for free; and this benefit is the potential usage of tags attached to existing claims, for future versions of the spec. But given that a CBOR decoder would normally ignore tags already, I'm also fine with not changing the text if it is confusing for developers. They might think they need to implement something while the requirement actually asks them *not* to implement something. Most developers would not bother to implement such extra checks anyhow. thanks Esko From: Mike Jones [mailto:michael.jo...@microsoft.com] Sent: Friday, December 8, 2017 14:46 To: Esko Dijk ; Samuel Erdtman Cc: Benjamin Kaduk ; ace@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November) Requiring extra code in recipients to ignore tags that already must not be present would make them needlessly more complicated and hurt interop. It's virtually certain that many implementations will not include this extra code that should never be executed. We shouldn't put developers in the position of deciding whether to add code for a case that already must not occur. -- Mike The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this email is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original email. ___ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November)
Requiring extra code in recipients to ignore tags that already must not be present would make them needlessly more complicated and hurt interop. It's virtually certain that many implementations will not include this extra code that should never be executed. We shouldn't put developers in the position of deciding whether to add code for a case that already must not occur. -- Mike From: Ace on behalf of Samuel Erdtman Sent: Friday, December 8, 2017 4:31:31 AM To: Esko Dijk Cc: Benjamin Kaduk; ace@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November) thanks for persisting See inline On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Esko Dijk mailto:esko.d...@philips.com>> wrote: Thanks Samuel, I agree with your answers and proposed actions except for the below: > I think the language in section 3 is enough to get robust implementations. > "all claims that are not understood by implementations MUST be ignored." Ignoring a claim is very different from ignoring an unrecognize/unsuitable tag that prefixes a claim. The latter will in fact accept the claim while the former will reject the claim. To get the desired robustness and future extendibility, and make tags useful for existing claims, an implementation must ignore the unrecognized tag – but not the claim. (Assuming any cases where the receiver should understand the claim but a future-version sender has added an additional future-version tag to it.) What this can achieve is keep using ‘old’ version claims while augmenting these with ‘new version’ semantics by use of tags, in a future version of the specification. Besides with current Section 3 & 5 language one claim parser #1 may still consider an “exp” claim as “understood” because it ignores any tags for it, while parser #2 may reject that “exp” claim because it sees a tag that is not 1. While parser #3 may reject an “exp” claim even with a tag 1 because it considers it out of scope of the spec (which says sender MUST NOT use this tag hence any tag usage is not according to spec so not understood.). In a way this issue is similar to the archetypical spec requirement of “sender MUST put 0s in this field and a receiver MUST ignore the value of this field”. Both are needed. I have added created a PR with some text to make this more specific. please have a look at https://github.com/erwah/ietf/pull/74 Best Regards Esko From: Samuel Erdtman [mailto:sam...@erdtman.se<mailto:sam...@erdtman.se>] Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 13:48 To: Esko Dijk mailto:esko.d...@philips.com>> Cc: Benjamin Kaduk mailto:ka...@mit.edu>>; ace@ietf.org<mailto:ace@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November) Thanks Esko for your review it is greatly appreciated. see comments inline On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Esko Dijk mailto:esko.d...@philips.com>> wrote: Dear all, Overall the document looks in good shape to go forward if the earlier mentioned issue of multiple values for "audience" (reported by Hannes) is addressed; and the below issue I see for Section 5. Other comments are minor. (Btw sorry for being late responding to this WGLC.) My review comments to specific sections: Entire document: Replace "binary string" by "byte string". The latter is the name used in RFC 7049. Good point. I have created a PR waiting for review by the co-authors 3.1.1 / 3.1.2 / 3.1.3 "except that the value is of type StringOrURI" -> May be slightly confusing to readers, since JWT also has StringOrURI named type. So it seemingly says "don't use StringOrURI, but use StringOrURI." This is most likely intended, as in "don't use JWT StringOrURI, but use our CWT StringOrURI". So also fine if we leave this formulation in, but it could still cause some confusion. I see your point, but I don´t think it will be an issue. JWT is in JSON context and CWT is in CBOR context so whenever string is refereed to in CWT the reader should think CBOR string and vice verse for JWT. If you don´t have a strong opinion here or a great suggestion for a new name I would like to keep it as it is. 3.1.4 / 3.1.5 / 3.1.6 "except that the value is of type NumericDate" -> same comment as above. Same as above. 5 Text states the sender MUST NOT use a tag, but future specs may introduce tags for claim values. Then it seems required to also include some text about how a receiver implementing the *current* version of CWT should handle tags for claim values, which may come from a sender implementing a future version of CWT. E.g. add text "A receiver/decoder MUST ignore any Tags used for a claim value." That should help robustness and future extendibility. E.g. we don't want receivers of a CWT to go check if tags are present and reject
Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November)
thanks for persisting See inline On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Esko Dijk wrote: > Thanks Samuel, > > > > I agree with your answers and proposed actions except for the below: > > > > > I think the language in section 3 is enough to get robust > implementations. "all claims that are not understood by implementations > MUST be ignored." > > > > Ignoring a claim is very different from ignoring an unrecognize/unsuitable > tag that prefixes a claim. The latter will in fact accept the claim while > the former will reject the claim. > > To get the desired robustness and future extendibility, and make tags > useful for existing claims, an implementation must ignore the unrecognized > tag – but not the claim. (Assuming any cases where the receiver should > understand the claim but a future-version sender has added an additional > future-version tag to it.) > > What this can achieve is keep using ‘old’ version claims while augmenting > these with ‘new version’ semantics by use of tags, in a future version of > the specification. > > > > Besides with current Section 3 & 5 language one claim parser #1 may still > consider an “exp” claim as “understood” because it ignores any tags for it, > while parser #2 may reject that “exp” claim because it sees a tag that is > not 1. While parser #3 may reject an “exp” claim even with a tag 1 because > it considers it out of scope of the spec (which says sender MUST NOT use > this tag hence any tag usage is not according to spec so not understood.). > > > > In a way this issue is similar to the archetypical spec requirement of > “sender MUST put 0s in this field and a receiver MUST ignore the value of > this field”. Both are needed. > I have added created a PR with some text to make this more specific. please have a look at https://github.com/erwah/ietf/pull/74 > > Best Regards > > Esko > > > > *From:* Samuel Erdtman [mailto:sam...@erdtman.se] > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 6, 2017 13:48 > *To:* Esko Dijk > *Cc:* Benjamin Kaduk ; ace@ietf.org > > *Subject:* Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 > November) > > > > Thanks Esko for your review it is greatly appreciated. > > see comments inline > > > > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Esko Dijk wrote: > > Dear all, > > Overall the document looks in good shape to go forward if the earlier > mentioned issue of multiple values for "audience" (reported by Hannes) is > addressed; and the below issue I see for Section 5. Other comments are > minor. > (Btw sorry for being late responding to this WGLC.) > > My review comments to specific sections: > > Entire document: > Replace "binary string" by "byte string". The latter is the name used in > RFC 7049. > > > > Good point. > > I have created a PR waiting for review by the co-authors > > > > > 3.1.1 / 3.1.2 / 3.1.3 > "except that the value is of type StringOrURI" > -> May be slightly confusing to readers, since JWT also has StringOrURI > named type. So it seemingly says "don't use StringOrURI, but use > StringOrURI." This is most likely intended, as in "don't use JWT > StringOrURI, but use our CWT StringOrURI". So also fine if we leave this > formulation in, but it could still cause some confusion. > > > > I see your point, but I don´t think it will be an issue. JWT is in JSON > context and CWT is in CBOR context so whenever string is refereed to in CWT > the reader should think CBOR string and vice verse for JWT. > > If you don´t have a strong opinion here or a great suggestion for a new > name I would like to keep it as it is. > > > > > 3.1.4 / 3.1.5 / 3.1.6 > "except that the value is of type NumericDate" > -> same comment as above. > > > > Same as above. > > > > > 5 > Text states the sender MUST NOT use a tag, but future specs may introduce > tags for claim values. Then it seems required to also include some text > about how a receiver implementing the *current* version of CWT should > handle tags for claim values, which may come from a sender implementing a > future version of CWT. > E.g. add text "A receiver/decoder MUST ignore any Tags used for a claim > value." > That should help robustness and future extendibility. E.g. we don't want > receivers of a CWT to go check if tags are present and reject the CWT if a > Tag is found. > > > > I think the language in section 3 is enough to get robust implementations. > "all claims that are not understood by implementations MUST be ignored." > > > > > 7.1 >
Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November)
Thanks Samuel, I agree with your answers and proposed actions except for the below: > I think the language in section 3 is enough to get robust implementations. > "all claims that are not understood by implementations MUST be ignored." Ignoring a claim is very different from ignoring an unrecognize/unsuitable tag that prefixes a claim. The latter will in fact accept the claim while the former will reject the claim. To get the desired robustness and future extendibility, and make tags useful for existing claims, an implementation must ignore the unrecognized tag – but not the claim. (Assuming any cases where the receiver should understand the claim but a future-version sender has added an additional future-version tag to it.) What this can achieve is keep using ‘old’ version claims while augmenting these with ‘new version’ semantics by use of tags, in a future version of the specification. Besides with current Section 3 & 5 language one claim parser #1 may still consider an “exp” claim as “understood” because it ignores any tags for it, while parser #2 may reject that “exp” claim because it sees a tag that is not 1. While parser #3 may reject an “exp” claim even with a tag 1 because it considers it out of scope of the spec (which says sender MUST NOT use this tag hence any tag usage is not according to spec so not understood.). In a way this issue is similar to the archetypical spec requirement of “sender MUST put 0s in this field and a receiver MUST ignore the value of this field”. Both are needed. Best Regards Esko From: Samuel Erdtman [mailto:sam...@erdtman.se] Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 13:48 To: Esko Dijk Cc: Benjamin Kaduk ; ace@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November) Thanks Esko for your review it is greatly appreciated. see comments inline On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Esko Dijk mailto:esko.d...@philips.com>> wrote: Dear all, Overall the document looks in good shape to go forward if the earlier mentioned issue of multiple values for "audience" (reported by Hannes) is addressed; and the below issue I see for Section 5. Other comments are minor. (Btw sorry for being late responding to this WGLC.) My review comments to specific sections: Entire document: Replace "binary string" by "byte string". The latter is the name used in RFC 7049. Good point. I have created a PR waiting for review by the co-authors 3.1.1 / 3.1.2 / 3.1.3 "except that the value is of type StringOrURI" -> May be slightly confusing to readers, since JWT also has StringOrURI named type. So it seemingly says "don't use StringOrURI, but use StringOrURI." This is most likely intended, as in "don't use JWT StringOrURI, but use our CWT StringOrURI". So also fine if we leave this formulation in, but it could still cause some confusion. I see your point, but I don´t think it will be an issue. JWT is in JSON context and CWT is in CBOR context so whenever string is refereed to in CWT the reader should think CBOR string and vice verse for JWT. If you don´t have a strong opinion here or a great suggestion for a new name I would like to keep it as it is. 3.1.4 / 3.1.5 / 3.1.6 "except that the value is of type NumericDate" -> same comment as above. Same as above. 5 Text states the sender MUST NOT use a tag, but future specs may introduce tags for claim values. Then it seems required to also include some text about how a receiver implementing the *current* version of CWT should handle tags for claim values, which may come from a sender implementing a future version of CWT. E.g. add text "A receiver/decoder MUST ignore any Tags used for a claim value." That should help robustness and future extendibility. E.g. we don't want receivers of a CWT to go check if tags are present and reject the CWT if a Tag is found. I think the language in section 3 is enough to get robust implementations. "all claims that are not understood by implementations MUST be ignored." 7.1 Step 5 & 6: text states "add the matching COSE CBOR tag" resp. "add the appropriate COSE CBOR tag" -> could we clarify where this is added, e.g. say "prepend with the matching COSE CBOR tag"? I think adding the tag in itself has this semantic. But I have created a PR with the change, so that my co-authors can consider it. 9.2.1 "Applications that use this media type: IoT applications sending security tokens over HTTP(S) and other transports" -> can already mention CoAP/CoAPs here ? It is not obvious that we should mention CoAP(S) here since the media type is for HTTP(S) and not CoAP(S) and it does state that "and other transports". For CoAP(S) we register the CoAP Content-Format that maps to this media type. Best regards Esko Dijk -Original Message----- From: Ace [
Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November)
Thanks Esko for your review it is greatly appreciated. see comments inline On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Esko Dijk wrote: > Dear all, > > Overall the document looks in good shape to go forward if the earlier > mentioned issue of multiple values for "audience" (reported by Hannes) is > addressed; and the below issue I see for Section 5. Other comments are > minor. > (Btw sorry for being late responding to this WGLC.) > > My review comments to specific sections: > > Entire document: > Replace "binary string" by "byte string". The latter is the name used in > RFC 7049. > Good point. I have created a PR waiting for review by the co-authors > > 3.1.1 / 3.1.2 / 3.1.3 > "except that the value is of type StringOrURI" > -> May be slightly confusing to readers, since JWT also has StringOrURI > named type. So it seemingly says "don't use StringOrURI, but use > StringOrURI." This is most likely intended, as in "don't use JWT > StringOrURI, but use our CWT StringOrURI". So also fine if we leave this > formulation in, but it could still cause some confusion. > I see your point, but I don´t think it will be an issue. JWT is in JSON context and CWT is in CBOR context so whenever string is refereed to in CWT the reader should think CBOR string and vice verse for JWT. If you don´t have a strong opinion here or a great suggestion for a new name I would like to keep it as it is. > > 3.1.4 / 3.1.5 / 3.1.6 > "except that the value is of type NumericDate" > -> same comment as above. > Same as above. > 5 > Text states the sender MUST NOT use a tag, but future specs may introduce > tags for claim values. Then it seems required to also include some text > about how a receiver implementing the *current* version of CWT should > handle tags for claim values, which may come from a sender implementing a > future version of CWT. > E.g. add text "A receiver/decoder MUST ignore any Tags used for a claim > value." > That should help robustness and future extendibility. E.g. we don't want > receivers of a CWT to go check if tags are present and reject the CWT if a > Tag is found. > I think the language in section 3 is enough to get robust implementations. "all claims that are not understood by implementations MUST be ignored." > > 7.1 > Step 5 & 6: text states "add the matching COSE CBOR tag" resp. "add the > appropriate COSE CBOR tag" > -> could we clarify where this is added, e.g. say "prepend with the > matching COSE CBOR tag"? > I think adding the tag in itself has this semantic. But I have created a PR with the change, so that my co-authors can consider it. > > 9.2.1 > "Applications that use this media type: IoT applications sending security > tokens over HTTP(S) and other transports" > -> can already mention CoAP/CoAPs here ? > It is not obvious that we should mention CoAP(S) here since the media type is for HTTP(S) and not CoAP(S) and it does state that "and other transports". For CoAP(S) we register the CoAP Content-Format that maps to this media type. > > Best regards > Esko Dijk > > > -Original Message- > From: Ace [mailto:ace-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Benjamin Kaduk > Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2017 01:31 > To: ace@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November) > > Reminder: there is only one week left in this WGLC. > > -Ben > > On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 12:24:56PM -0500, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > This message begins a working group last call for > > draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token for submission as a Standards-Track RFC, > > ending at 23:59 PST on Wednesday 29 November, 2017. > > > > The current (-09) version of the document is available at: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-09 . > > > > Thanks, > > > > Ben and Jim > > > > ___ > > 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 > > > The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally > protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the > addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby > notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this > email is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy > all copies of the original email. > > ___ > 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
Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November)
Hi Esko, On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 09:47:52AM +, Esko Dijk wrote: > Dear all, > > Overall the document looks in good shape to go forward if the earlier > mentioned issue of multiple values for "audience" (reported by Hannes) is > addressed; and the below issue I see for Section 5. Other comments are minor. > (Btw sorry for being late responding to this WGLC.) Thanks for the review; it's always good to have more eyes on the document. -Ben ___ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November)
Dear all, Overall the document looks in good shape to go forward if the earlier mentioned issue of multiple values for "audience" (reported by Hannes) is addressed; and the below issue I see for Section 5. Other comments are minor. (Btw sorry for being late responding to this WGLC.) My review comments to specific sections: Entire document: Replace "binary string" by "byte string". The latter is the name used in RFC 7049. 3.1.1 / 3.1.2 / 3.1.3 "except that the value is of type StringOrURI" -> May be slightly confusing to readers, since JWT also has StringOrURI named type. So it seemingly says "don't use StringOrURI, but use StringOrURI." This is most likely intended, as in "don't use JWT StringOrURI, but use our CWT StringOrURI". So also fine if we leave this formulation in, but it could still cause some confusion. 3.1.4 / 3.1.5 / 3.1.6 "except that the value is of type NumericDate" -> same comment as above. 5 Text states the sender MUST NOT use a tag, but future specs may introduce tags for claim values. Then it seems required to also include some text about how a receiver implementing the *current* version of CWT should handle tags for claim values, which may come from a sender implementing a future version of CWT. E.g. add text "A receiver/decoder MUST ignore any Tags used for a claim value." That should help robustness and future extendibility. E.g. we don't want receivers of a CWT to go check if tags are present and reject the CWT if a Tag is found. 7.1 Step 5 & 6: text states "add the matching COSE CBOR tag" resp. "add the appropriate COSE CBOR tag" -> could we clarify where this is added, e.g. say "prepend with the matching COSE CBOR tag"? 9.2.1 "Applications that use this media type: IoT applications sending security tokens over HTTP(S) and other transports" -> can already mention CoAP/CoAPs here ? Best regards Esko Dijk -Original Message----- From: Ace [mailto:ace-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Benjamin Kaduk Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2017 01:31 To: ace@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November) Reminder: there is only one week left in this WGLC. -Ben On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 12:24:56PM -0500, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > This message begins a working group last call for > draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token for submission as a Standards-Track RFC, > ending at 23:59 PST on Wednesday 29 November, 2017. > > The current (-09) version of the document is available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-09 . > > Thanks, > > Ben and Jim > > ___ > 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 The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this email is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original email. ___ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November)
Thanks for the review Ludwig, it is really appreciated. see inline On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Ludwig Seitz wrote: > Hi ACE, > > I have only some nits on the CWT draft (see below). > > > /Ludwig > > > > I'm not sure what the RFC editors prefer as affiliation > (I've seen both): > > -- > E. Wahlstroem > > -- OR > E. Wahlstroem > (no affiliation) > -- > I would prefere the empty space. The xml doc does not contain any text and when submitting to http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/ I get the empty line. If co-authors agree I think we need to do something when submitting the new draft. > > > === > 2. Terminology > > In the RFC 2119 boilerplate I noticed that only MUST, MUST NOT and NOT > RECOMMENDED is used in the draft. What is the recommended procedure here? > It feels like we could remove the other ones. > > === > I agree with Carsten that the full template should be used. and I agree with Benjamin that we should use the latest version. I have created a PR that is waiting for review by co-authors. > > "CWT Claims Set > > The CBOR map that ..." > > Why is a map called a set here? I know what is meant, but it sound really > weird. > I think the is the right way to phrase it. > > === > > Sections 3.1.* > > The links to sections in JWT point to sections in this draft instead > (at least in the html-ised version of the draft). > > See: > https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfcFAQ.html#anchor18 > > for hints on how to fix this. > I have created a PR that is waiting for review by co-authors. > === > > Figure 1: Perhaps indicate the CBOR major type number together with the > "Value type" text. > I agree with Carsten, we have had this discussion before. I have created a PR changing from ascii art to table (waiting for review by co-authors) > > === > > > > -- > 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
Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November)
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:55:46AM +0100, Carsten Bormann wrote: > Hi Ludwig, > > > I'm not sure what the RFC editors prefer as affiliation > > (I've seen both): > > > > -- > > E. Wahlstroem > > > > -- OR > > E. Wahlstroem > > (no affiliation) > > — > > I don’t know what the RFC editor prefers her, but I find “no affiliation” > jarring — leaving the space open is much better. I also sometimes see "Unaffliated". > > === > > 2. Terminology > > > > In the RFC 2119 boilerplate I noticed that only MUST, MUST NOT and NOT > > RECOMMENDED is used in the draft. What is the recommended procedure here? > > It feels like we could remove the other ones. > > It is usual to include the whole boilerplate (obviously the corrected one, > with NOT RECOMMENDED included, in this case). Right, at this point people should be citing BCP 14/RFC 8174. -Ben ___ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November)
On 2017-11-23 11:55, Carsten Bormann wrote: Figure 1: Perhaps indicate the CBOR major type number together with the "Value type" text. Or perhaps don’t? The major type number is something that is internal to the serialization; standards using RFC 7049 should not try to repeat internals of RFC 7049 all over the place. I’d prefer to use the data model level names as it is specified now. I'll take that as an input to draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz as well then. Btw Carsten, can you review that one at some point? I think you input would be valuable (we have reviews from a few OAuth experts, but not so many from CoRE experts). /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
Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November)
Hi Ludwig, > I'm not sure what the RFC editors prefer as affiliation > (I've seen both): > > -- > E. Wahlstroem > > -- OR > E. Wahlstroem > (no affiliation) > — I don’t know what the RFC editor prefers her, but I find “no affiliation” jarring — leaving the space open is much better. > === > 2. Terminology > > In the RFC 2119 boilerplate I noticed that only MUST, MUST NOT and NOT > RECOMMENDED is used in the draft. What is the recommended procedure here? It > feels like we could remove the other ones. It is usual to include the whole boilerplate (obviously the corrected one, with NOT RECOMMENDED included, in this case). > === > > "CWT Claims Set > > The CBOR map that ..." > > Why is a map called a set here? I know what is meant, but it sound really > weird. Because a claim is a pair of map key and map value, so the whole thing is indeed a set of claims (with the additional restriction that a key can only be used once; hence we need array-valued map values). (The term “claim" is misleading and wrong here, but that is inherited from JWT.) > === > > Sections 3.1.* > > The links to sections in JWT point to sections in this draft instead > (at least in the html-ised version of the draft). > > See: > https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfcFAQ.html#anchor18 > > for hints on how to fix this. Somewhat temporary, but a useful thing to change. > > === > > Figure 1: Perhaps indicate the CBOR major type number together with the > "Value type" text. Or perhaps don’t? The major type number is something that is internal to the serialization; standards using RFC 7049 should not try to repeat internals of RFC 7049 all over the place. I’d prefer to use the data model level names as it is specified now. My editorial comment on this is that this should be a table, not ASCII art. Grüße, Carsten ___ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November)
Hi ACE, I have only some nits on the CWT draft (see below). /Ludwig I'm not sure what the RFC editors prefer as affiliation (I've seen both): -- E. Wahlstroem -- OR E. Wahlstroem (no affiliation) -- === 2. Terminology In the RFC 2119 boilerplate I noticed that only MUST, MUST NOT and NOT RECOMMENDED is used in the draft. What is the recommended procedure here? It feels like we could remove the other ones. === "CWT Claims Set The CBOR map that ..." Why is a map called a set here? I know what is meant, but it sound really weird. === Sections 3.1.* The links to sections in JWT point to sections in this draft instead (at least in the html-ised version of the draft). See: https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfcFAQ.html#anchor18 for hints on how to fix this. === Figure 1: Perhaps indicate the CBOR major type number together with the "Value type" text. === -- 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
Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November)
Reminder: there is only one week left in this WGLC. -Ben On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 12:24:56PM -0500, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > This message begins a working group last call for > draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token for submission as a Standards-Track RFC, > ending at 23:59 PST on Wednesday 29 November, 2017. > > The current (-09) version of the document is available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-09 . > > Thanks, > > Ben and Jim > > ___ > 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
