Thanks for the catch. Yes, this should be a CBOR map. I failed to make this change when transforming RFC 7800 into this draft. I'll correct it in the next version.
– Mike From: Michael Richardson<mailto:mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 2:19 PM To: Mike Jones<mailto:michael.jo...@microsoft.com> Cc: ace@ietf.org<mailto:ace@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Ace] Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for CBOR Web Tokens (CWTs) Come to the discussion late, cleaning my inbox. section 3 says: "The value of the cnf claim is a JSON object and the members of that object identify the proof-of-possession key." And somehow, I think that the claim ought to be a CBOR object? Same for the paragraph of 3.4. I found the next paragraph about whether the sub or iss is the presenter to be obtuse. Maybe it is lacking some ACE RS/C/AS terminology? I am trying to figure out if the nonce-full mechanism that we describe in draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra or anima-voucher, and later to be re-interpreted as CWT in draft-ietf-6tisch-dtsecurity-secure-join should reference RFC 7800 and this document instead. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
_______________________________________________ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
