Re: [Ace] Call for adoption of draft-palombini-ace-key-groupcomm

I have not looked in detail at the mls protocol documents, but from what I remember they have more or less skipped the entire AAA question of having a central authorizer and made it so that any entity which is currently active has the ability to add or remove anybody else. That is not curren

Re: [Ace] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz-17.txt and draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params-01.txt

Ludwig, It looks good. A couple of additional things that have occurred to me. (Always a problem when on reads drafts again and again.) 1. I don't really have a problem with figure 6, but I don't know if we want to more correctly reflect what an OSCORE message would look like in this location.

Re: [Ace] WGLC comments on draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz and draft-ietf-ace-params

I believe the consensus in the room at the F2F was to document 2, but make sure that it is not done in a way which would forbid 1 in the future. That is the default should be 2 but a future document/solution should be able to say how 1 could be done in the future. Jim > -Original Message---

Re: [Ace] EDHOC standardization

John, In the analysis that I did I very deliberately used TLS not DTLS. The main reason for using DTLS is because one is operating in the UDP environment and one cannot have reliable in order delivery. Since EDHOC is being built on top of CoAP, one can use CoAP to create reliable in order del

Re: [Ace] Resume of discussion at IETF 103 meeting on draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz

Most of this is a restatement of previous positions. > -Original Message- > From: Ace On Behalf Of Ludwig Seitz > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 12:22 AM > To: ace@ietf.org > Subject: [Ace] Resume of discussion at IETF 103 meeting on draft-ietf-ace- > oauth-authz > > Hello ACE, > > I

Re: [Ace] ACE Framework Review

> -Original Message- > From: Ace On Behalf Of Ludwig Seitz > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2018 9:50 PM > To: ace@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Ace] ACE Framework Review > > On 12/11/2018 15:31, Michael Richardson wrote: > > > > > > Management of the authz-info resource: * The authz-info

Re: [Ace] Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for CBOR Web Tokens (CWTs) spec adding Key ID considerations

@ietf.org Cc: Jim Schaad ; Roman Danyliw Subject: Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for CBOR Web Tokens (CWTs) spec adding Key ID considerations Key ID confirmation method considerations suggested by Jim Schaad have been added to the Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for CBOR Web Tokens (CWTs

Re: [Ace] Summarizing WGLC discussion of draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession

I do not believe that the big comment that I have left has been addressed. From: Mike Jones Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 3:43 PM To: Roman Danyliw ; ace@ietf.org Cc: Jim Schaad Subject: RE: Summarizing WGLC discussion of draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession Thanks for the useful

Re: [Ace] WGLC for draft-ietf-ace-authz

> -Original Message- > From: Ludwig Seitz > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 3:20 AM > To: Jim Schaad ; draft-ietf-ace-oauth- > au...@ietf.org > Cc: ace@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Ace] WGLC for draft-ietf-ace-authz > > On 22/10/2018 21:09, Jim Schaad wrote: &

Re: [Ace] WGLC for draft-ietf-ace-authz

#x27;T SQUAT ON NUMERIC REGISTRY VALUES: Please change all > instances > > of numbers to be assigned by designated experts in existing > > registries from specific values to "TBD". For instance, all the > > values for the CWT Claims Registry in Section 8.13 (cur

Re: [Ace] WGLC for draft-ietf-ace-authz

n with OAuth in that respect. > For example draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-17 doesn't seem to register any of the > classical OAuth req/resp parameters as JWT claims ("This specification > requests no actions by IANA.") > > How is the position of the OAuth WG on this? &g

Re: [Ace] WGLC for draft-ietf-ace-authz

> -Original Message- > From: Mike Jones > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 5:58 PM > To: Jim Schaad ; ace@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Ace] WGLC for draft-ietf-ace-authz > > IT CAN'T BE A COINCIDENCE: There's clearly a relationship between many of > th

Re: [Ace] WGLC for draft-ietf-ace-oscore-profile

> -Original Message- > From: Francesca Palombini > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 4:47 AM > To: Jim Schaad ; draft-ietf-ace-oscore- > prof...@ietf.org > Cc: ace@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Ace] WGLC for draft-ietf-ace-oscore-profile > > Hi Jim, > > T

Re: [Ace] WGLC for draft-ietf-ace-authz

dnesday, October 24, 2018 10:34 PM > To: Mike Jones > Cc: Jim Schaad ; ace@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Ace] WGLC for draft-ietf-ace-authz > > +1 for making all the CWT-like structures into real CWTs. > > Grüße, Carsten ___ Ace mailin

Re: [Ace] ACE Framework Review

> -Original Message- > From: Ace On Behalf Of Stefanie Gerdes > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 6:53 AM > To: Ludwig Seitz ; ace@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Ace] ACE Framework Review > > Hi Ludwig, > > On 10/22/2018 03:07 PM, Ludwig Seitz wrote: > > > >> The minimal security requiremen

Re: [Ace] Review of draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params-00

> -Original Message- > From: Ace On Behalf Of Ludwig Seitz > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 1:00 AM > To: ace@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Ace] Review of draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params-00 > > On 23/10/2018 21:09, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > > > 2) 'req_aud' parameter > > > > At the last IE

Re: [Ace] WGLC for draft-ietf-ace-authz

> -Original Message- > From: Ludwig Seitz > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 2:02 AM > To: Jim Schaad ; draft-ietf-ace-oauth- > au...@ietf.org > Cc: ace@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Ace] WGLC for draft-ietf-ace-authz > > On 23/10/2

Re: [Ace] WGLC for draft-ietf-ace-authz

> -Original Message- > From: Ludwig Seitz > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 7:43 AM > To: Jim Schaad ; draft-ietf-ace-oauth- > au...@ietf.org > Cc: ace@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Ace] WGLC for draft-ietf-ace-authz > > Hallo Jim, > > thank yo

Re: [Ace] FW: New Version Notification for draft-schaad-cnf-cwt-id-00.txt

> -Original Message- > From: Carsten Bormann > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 12:09 PM > To: Jim Schaad > Cc: ace@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Ace] FW: New Version Notification for draft-schaad-cnf-cwt-id- > 00.txt > > On Oct 22, 2018, at 20:49, Jim Schaad wr

Re: [Ace] ACE Framework Review

> -Original Message- > From: Ace On Behalf Of Ludwig Seitz > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 6:08 AM > To: ace@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Ace] ACE Framework Review > > On 10/10/2018 16:24, Stefanie Gerdes wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I looked through the ACE framework document. I think there ar

[Ace] FW: WGLC comments on draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize

This was cc-ed to the wrong list -Original Message- From: Jim Schaad Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 12:09 PM To: 'draft-ietf-ace-dtls-author...@ietf.org' Cc: 'c...@ietf.org' Subject: WGLC comments on draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize Section 3 - Am I just missing

Re: [Ace] WGLC for draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params

Here are my WGLC comments: * I am not sure that I understand what the protocol flow is when JAR is being used. Is there a potential case where a JWT would be used as the structure of an OAuth response? If so then is there a problem with defining cnf in section 4.1? * We need to have a OAuth CB

Re: [Ace] WGLC for draft-ietf-ace-authz

* Section 3.1 - Refresh Token - I don't think that refresh tokens are going to be strings because binary is more efficient. * Section 3.2 - we need to reference TLS 1.3 even if DTLS 1.3 is not yet available. * Description for Figure 6 - Should the example somehow indicate in the message that it

Re: [Ace] WGLC for draft-ietf-ace-oscore-profile

act that we have not even tried to get this to work in any of the interop tests means that I am less sure that it is well baked. Jim > -Original Message- > From: Ace On Behalf Of Jim Schaad > Sent: Monday, October 8, 2018 2:35 PM > To: ace@ietf.org > Subject: [Ace] WGL

[Ace] FW: New Version Notification for draft-schaad-cnf-cwt-id-00.txt

like to know how interested people would be in getting it finished. Jim -Original Message- From: internet-dra...@ietf.org Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 11:19 AM To: Jim Schaad Subject: New Version Notification for draft-schaad-cnf-cwt-id-00.txt A new version of I-D, draft-schaad

[Ace] Agenda for the Bangkok meeting

If you want a space on the agenda in Bangkok, please send the chairs (ace-cha...@ietf.org) a request. That request should include: * Document * Who is presenting * Is this going to be remote? (If yes then an alternate local presenter name is requested as well.) * How long do you believe you will

[Ace] WGLC for draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params

The chairs believe that the set of documents dealing with the OAuth framework for constrained environments is nearing the point that we should be able to advance it to the IESG for publication. We therefore want to have a full list of issues that need to be dealt with at the Bangkok meeting. Thi

[Ace] WGLC for draft-ietf-dtl-authorize

The chairs believe that the set of documents dealing with the OAuth framework for constrained environments is nearing the point that we should be able to advance it to the IESG for publication. We therefore want to have a full list of issues that need to be dealt with at the Bangkok meeting.

[Ace] WGLC for draft-ietf-ace-oscore-profile

The chairs believe that the set of documents dealing with the OAuth framework for constrained environments is nearing the point that we should be able to advance it to the IESG for publication. We therefore want to have a full list of issues that need to be dealt with at the Bangkok meeting.

[Ace] WGLC for draft-ietf-ace-authz

The chairs believe that the set of documents dealing with the OAuth framework for constrained environments is nearing the point that we should be able to advance it to the IESG for publication. We therefore want to have a full list of issues that need to be dealt with at the Bangkok meeting. Thi

Re: [Ace] JWT + OAuth Request

> -Original Message- > From: Michael Richardson > Sent: Thursday, October 4, 2018 6:45 AM > To: Jim Schaad > Cc: ace@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Ace] JWT + OAuth Request > > > Jim Schaad wrote: > > The OAuth group discovered a problem with some t

[Ace] JWT + OAuth Request

The OAuth group discovered a problem with some the names of our new OAuth fields that was caused by the fact that they have an ID that is someplace between the IESG and the RFC Editor which introduced the concept of using a JWT to as the transport for an OAuth request. This allows for doing end-to

Re: [Ace] ace-coap-est: unclear definition of /.well-known/est URI

> -Original Message- > From: Ace On Behalf Of Michael Richardson > Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 9:27 AM > To: consulta...@vanderstok.org > Cc: Esko Dijk ; Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) > ; ace@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Ace] ace-coap-est: unclear definition of /.well-known/est URI > >

Re: [Ace] Review draft-ietf-ace-coap-est

Yes I think that is correct. I’ll need to review final text at some point but what you say below look right. From: Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 1:29 PM To: Jim Schaad ; consulta...@vanderstok.org Cc: draft-ietf-ace-coap-...@ietf.org; 'ace' S

Re: [Ace] Parameter abbreviation number ranges for draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz

We are doing all of this in response to a draft? Why can you not fix the draft and put the OAuth parameters in a sub map so there is no collisions? Jim > -Original Message- > From: Mike Jones > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 9:45 AM > To: Ludwig Seitz ; Samuel Erdtman ;

Re: [Ace] Parameter abbreviation number ranges for draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz

> -Original Message- > From: Ace On Behalf Of Ludwig Seitz > Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 12:52 AM > To: ace@ietf.org > Subject: [Ace] Parameter abbreviation number ranges for draft-ietf-ace-oauth- > authz > > Hello group, > > at IETF 102 there was a discussion about the numerical ab

Re: [Ace] Review Comments on -03

Tuesday, July 31, 2018 5:01 AM > To: Jim Schaad > Cc: draft-ietf-ace-dtls-author...@ietf.org; 'ace' > Subject: Re: [Ace] Review Comments on -03 > > Hi Jim, > > Thank you for your detailed review and good comments. I will come up with > proposed changes within

Re: [Ace] Text for KID in POP

Should be circumscribed not circumcised although the first does echo my personal feelings. Jim > -Original Message- > From: Ace On Behalf Of Jim Schaad > Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 6:13 PM > To: ace@ietf.org > Subject: [Ace] Text for KID in POP > > Add

[Ace] Text for KID in POP

Add the following text to section 3.4. WARNING: The use of a Key ID in a POP CWT needs to be carefully circumcised. Where the Key ID is not a cryptographic value derived from the key or where all of the parties involved are not validating the cryptographic derivation, it is possible to get into si

Re: [Ace] Message overhead of the OSCORE profile and ACE specs

From: Ace On Behalf Of Mališa Vucinic Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2018 5:44 PM To: ace@ietf.org Subject: [Ace] Message overhead of the OSCORE profile and ACE specs Hi Ludwig, all, I am in the process of implementing draft-ietf-ace-oscore-profile-02 for openwsn.org .

Re: [Ace] Review Comments on -03

/token. Once upon a time, I thought there was some work being done in the core group that would help clean this up. It has not finished, nor have I seen much about it recently. Jim > -Original Message- > From: Carsten Bormann > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 7:14 AM > To

[Ace] Review Comments on -03

Note - the OSCORE profile people should scan these comments for relevancy as well. Meta Question - Is there a check list that I can run through which says that these are the things that a profile needs to cover. Part of this question about how the document is structured. I was of the opinion tha

[Ace] Comments on ace key groupcomm -01

* Section 2 - client - write rights and/or read rights. Unless you think that write implies read in which case you should state that * Section 2 - KDC - should also say what it does in the later parts - * Section 2 - Dispatcher - If this is a bus, then you are not really communicating with it

Re: [Ace] Review draft-ietf-ace-coap-est

From: Peter van der Stok Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 1:01 AM To: Jim Schaad Cc: consulta...@vanderstok.org; draft-ietf-ace-coap-...@ietf.org; 'ace' Subject: Re: [Ace] Review draft-ietf-ace-coap-est * In section 4.1 I have a question about what you are using for paylo

Re: [Ace] Review draft-ietf-ace-coap-est

From: Peter van der Stok Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 1:53 AM To: Jim Schaad Cc: draft-ietf-ace-coap-...@ietf.org; 'ace' Subject: Re: [Ace] Review draft-ietf-ace-coap-est Hi Jim, Many thanks for the review. See our answers below. * In section 4.1 I have a question abou

[Ace] Review draft-ietf-ace-coap-est

* In section 4.1 I have a question about what you are using for payload content encoding. Part of this might just be a question of how you plan to move from ASN.1 to CBOR at some point in the future. I think that it would necessitate doing new media-types in that event. You appear to be doing a

Re: [Ace] Key IDs ... RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-02

From: Samuel Erdtman Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 5:40 PM To: Jim Schaad Cc: Samuel Erdtman ; draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possess...@ietf.org; Mike Jones ; Hannes Tschofenig ; Benjamin Kaduk ; ace Subject: Re: [Ace] Key IDs ... RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-02

Re: [Ace] Key IDs ... RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-02

I agree that some F2F on this would be useful. > -Original Message- > From: Hannes Tschofenig > Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 9:32 AM > To: Jim Schaad ; 'Benjamin Kaduk' > ; 'Mike Jones' > Cc: draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possess...@ietf.org; ace

Re: [Ace] Key IDs ... RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-02

From: Samuel Erdtman Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 8:18 AM To: Jim Schaad Cc: Hannes Tschofenig ; Benjamin Kaduk ; Mike Jones ; draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possess...@ietf.org; ace@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ace] Key IDs ... RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-02 Jim

Re: [Ace] Key IDs ... RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-02

they should not be doing. This is about an attack not about getting things to generally work right. Jim > -Original Message- > From: Hannes Tschofenig > Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 6:09 PM > To: Jim Schaad ; 'Benjamin Kaduk' > ; 'Mike Jones' > C

Re: [Ace] Key IDs ... RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-02

No Ben, you are 100% correct. This is about identifiers and not session keys. > -Original Message- > From: Benjamin Kaduk > Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 5:14 PM > To: Hannes Tschofenig > Cc: Mike Jones ; Jim Schaad > ; draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possess...@ietf.o

[Ace] Montreal IETF Agenda

If you want a spot on the agenda please let the chairs know. Please include topic/draft, presenter and a time request. Jim ___ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace

[Ace] Early registration of CoAP Media types for draft-ietf-ace-coap-est

We have received a request for early registration approval for the media types in draft-ietf-ace-coap-est. As part of the input to the decision to do this we need to know if there are any people who object to proceeding. If you object please respond either to the list or to the chairs and provide

Re: [Ace] Key IDs ... RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-02

y the same entity and say "use the same conformation method as this CWT does". jim > -Original Message- > From: Benjamin Kaduk > Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2018 11:30 PM > To: Mike Jones > Cc: Hannes Tschofenig ; Jim Schaad > ; draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-

Re: [Ace] Key IDs ... RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-02

No not really, Hannes's language is much closer to what I am looking for. I don't care if they are different kinds of CWTs. I care about impersonation. > -Original Message- > From: Mike Jones > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 10:44 PM > To: Jim Schaad ; Hannes Tschofe

Re: [Ace] Key IDs ... RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-02

> -Original Message- > From: Benjamin Kaduk > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 10:44 PM > To: Hannes Tschofenig > Cc: Jim Schaad ; 'Mike Jones' > ; draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of- > possess...@ietf.org; ace@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Ace] Key IDs ... RE: W

Re: [Ace] Key IDs ... RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-02

That language works if you assume that there is only one CWT that an RS will look to. If there are multiple CWTs then one needs coordination language between them. > -Original Message- > From: Hannes Tschofenig > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 6:36 AM > To: Jim Schaad ;

Re: [Ace] Review of draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz -12

I sent this review early by accident (I thought I was sending a different mail). However a couple things below. From: Samuel Erdtman Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 8:15 AM To: Jim Schaad Cc: draft-ietf-ace-oauth-au...@ietf.org; ace Subject: Re: [Ace] Review of draft-ietf-ace-oauth

Re: [Ace] [core] Early media-type registration for EST over CoAP

That sounds like a good plan forward. Are you also going to need an early registration on the multipart-core draft as well? Jim From: Peter van der Stok Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 3:07 AM To: Carsten Bormann Cc: Hannes Tschofenig ; core ; ace@ietf.org; Jim Schaad ; r

[Ace] Review of draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz -12

Based on where I currently am, here is another review of the document. 1. In section 4 for Figure one: Is the term "RS Information" your term or an OAuth term. When I see this I think of it as information for not about the RS which I do not believe is the intent. 2. In section 5.1 - I am uncl

Re: [Ace] [core] Early media-type registration for EST over CoAP

> -Original Message- > From: Ace On Behalf Of Michael Richardson > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 7:33 AM > To: core ; ace@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Ace] [core] Early media-type registration for EST over CoAP > > > Carsten Bormann wrote: > > On Jun 19, 2018, at 14:11, Carsten Bormann

Re: [Ace] Reminder -- WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-02

We have seen a number of messages on this document, but we have not yet seen an updated draft that addresses all of these issues. When should we expect a new version. It would have been nice to have had two published before Montreal but that does not seem likely at this point. Jim > -Origi

[Ace] Contact Info for ACE Interop Event tomorrow

We will go ahead and use a webex meeting for the interop event tomorrow JOIN WEBEX MEETING https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=m1e4d4e3b7a8f81354335d9be30dc3687 Meeting number (access code): 640 485 375 Host key: 770328 Meeting password: DEGrDby3 JOIN BY PHONE 1-650-479-3208 Call-in toll n

Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-02

> -Original Message- > From: Hannes Tschofenig > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 12:55 PM > To: Jim Schaad ; draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of- > possess...@ietf.org > Cc: ace@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-02 > > Hi Ji

Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-02

I have removed items where the proposed solution is probably sufficient. > -Original Message- > From: Mike Jones > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2018 4:34 AM > To: Jim Schaad ; draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of- > possess...@ietf.org > Cc: ace@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Ace] WGLC

Re: [Ace] OAuth-Authz Interop

would be nice to get those changes published. Jim > -Original Message- > From: Ace On Behalf Of Ludwig Seitz > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 6:47 AM > To: ace@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Ace] OAuth-Authz Interop > > On 2018-05-07 18:44, Jim Schaad wrote: > > I have b

Re: [Ace] OAuth-Authz Interop

udwig Seitz wrote: > On 2018-05-07 18:44, Jim Schaad wrote: >> I have been meaning to get this out for a while and have failed. A >> doodle poll to setup an interop event for this work is at >> <https://doodle.com/poll/k27g9r26bghvnytu> >> https://doodle.co

Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-02

I'll pull out the list of comments that I wrote a month ago but didn't start that computer up recently. 1. Are all of the authors necessary? As a chair I need to justify a count of more than 5 to the IESG. 2. Is the last sentence in section 1 necessary? Are you actually defining any strings t

[Ace] OAuth-Authz Interop

I have been meaning to get this out for a while and have failed. A doodle poll to setup an interop event for this work is at https://doodle.com/poll/k27g9r26bghvnytu If you want to participate and none of the times are good please let me know. Things for testing: 1) DTLS profile w/ shared secret

[Ace] draft-ietf-ace-coap-est-00

I agree with Hannes, this version of the document is much cleaner and much clearer. I think that it has solved most of the problems that I initially had with the draft. It is not ready to progress as there are still sections that are marked as TODO. But it is much closer to finishing that it was

Re: [Ace] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-13: (with COMMENT)

It might make more sense to prefix the JWT versions as not being what is here. Jim > -Original Message- > From: Mike Jones [mailto:michael.jo...@microsoft.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 9:47 PM > To: Benjamin Kaduk ; Adam Roach > Cc: The IESG ; draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-to...@ietf.

Re: [Ace] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-12: (with COMMENT)

> -Original Message- > From: Alexey Melnikov [mailto:aamelni...@fastmail.fm] > Sent: Sunday, March 4, 2018 1:01 PM > To: Jim Schaad ; The IESG > Cc: draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-to...@ietf.org; ace-cha...@ietf.org; > ka...@mit.edu; ace@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Alexey Me

Re: [Ace] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-12: (with COMMENT)

IANA does ask for the expert review as part of the processing it does even for standards track documents. This is because, in part, they are responsible for doing the final number assignment. That is which number in the range is actually used. The interesting question would be what happens if

[Ace] Hackathon Interop

Please let me know via private mail if you think you want to participate in some type of interop even on the ACE Oauth Authorization document. I would like to get an idea of what capabilities people think they are going to have so we can start getting a set of test cases worked up. Thanks, Jim

[Ace] Agenda Items for London

Please let the chairs know if you want a slot on the agenda for London. Please give us an idea of what you think you need to cover, how long you think it will take and who is doing the presentations. For people doing the presentations, I would like to get slides during the week of March 12th so th

[Ace] Adoption of draft-vanderstok-ace-est

Looking at the mailing list, it appears that the working group thinks that the document should be adopted. Peter, please republish the document as an ACE working group document and I will then approve it. Jim ___ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://

Re: [Ace] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-12

From: Dan Romascanu [mailto:droma...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 2:23 PM To: Jim Schaad Cc: Benjamin Kaduk ; gen-art ; draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token@ietf.org; ietf ; ace@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ace] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-12 Hi Jim

Re: [Ace] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-12

Kaduk Cc: Jim Schaad ; gen-art ; draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token@ietf.org; ietf ; ace@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ace] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-12 Hi, See also my other notes. I believe that what the document tries to say is: Register R is divided into four

Re: [Ace] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-12

From: Dan Romascanu [mailto:droma...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 1:19 PM To: Jim Schaad Cc: gen-art ; ace@ietf.org; ietf ; draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token@ietf.org Subject: Re: Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-12 Hi Jim, Thank you for your

Re: [Ace] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-12

> -Original Message- > From: Dan Romascanu [mailto:droma...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 11:03 AM > To: gen-...@ietf.org > Cc: ace@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token@ietf.org; > droma...@gmail.com > Subject: Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-ace-

[Ace] Working group adoption of draft-vanderstok-ace-est

This is the start of a two week call for input on the adoption of the WG of the document draft-vanderstok-ace-est. The document has been presented at the last two meetings and has some significant recent updates to respond to feedback. There seemed to be support at the last F2F to adopt. Please

[Ace] Minutes for IETF 100

I have uploaded the minutes for the meeting. Please feel free to look at them and send me comments. Jim ___ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace

[Ace] Please post a new draft

In processing the minutes, I noticed that we have made a call on the adoption for this draft. Please post a new version of the document as working group document. Jim ___ 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

Re: [Ace] CWT - Scope Claim

I have an outstanding comment to the effect that I want a binary scope value – specifically to allow for a CBOR encoded object – on the framework document. In terms of defining it in this document rather than in the framework, my first response would be ‘no’ only because this was designed to

Re: [Ace] CWT - Audience

This was done because, in CBOR, there is a way to distinguish between a string and a URL. This is lacking in JSON. I believe that the ability to not have to determine this heuristically is a good thing. Jim From: Ace [mailto:ace-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Samuel Erdtman Sent: Tue

Re: [Ace] Review of draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession 00

> -Original Message- > From: Mike Jones [mailto:michael.jo...@microsoft.com] > Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 7:43 PM > To: Jim Schaad ; draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of- > possess...@ietf.org > Cc: ace@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Review of draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-poss

Re: [Ace] Question about the response to an unauthorized request

[mailto:cigdem.sen...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 2:19 PM To: Jim Schaad Cc: Ludwig Seitz ; ace@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ace] Question about the response to an unauthorized request UMA assumes that resource server knows “which authorization server to approach for the

Re: [Ace] Question about the response to an unauthorized request

y not always reach AS etc. Nevertheless, it may be useful to think how other groups approach similar problems. Best, --Cigdem On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Ludwig Seitz mailto:ludwig.se...@ri.se> > wrote: Hello ACE, Jim Schaad has brought up an interesting question [1] on

Re: [Ace] Question about the response to an unauthorized request

ul to think how other groups approach similar problems. Best, --Cigdem On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Ludwig Seitz mailto:ludwig.se...@ri.se> > wrote: Hello ACE, Jim Schaad has brought up an interesting question [1] on draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz [2]: Currently when a clie

[Ace] Review of draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession 00

* I dislike the statement of what the specification claims to do. It will be misread by many people who are not familiar with how you are defining the word "presenter". If I intercept a CWT and present it to a validator, it does not make a claim that I possess a specific POP key. Given what a

[Ace] FW: draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-08 - CWT CBOR Tag

Of Jim Schaad Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 2:14 PM To: 'Carsten Bormann' ; 'Hannes Tschofenig' Cc: 'Mike Jones' ; ace@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ace] draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-08 - CWT CBOR Tag The type of location where it might show up is where one does a val

Re: [Ace] Comments on draft-tiloca-ace-oscoap-joining

esca.palomb...@ericsson.com] > Sent: Friday, October 20, 2017 6:21 AM > To: Jim Schaad ; draft-tiloca-ace-oscoap- > join...@ietf.org; draft-palombini-ace-coap-pubsub-prof...@ietf.org > Cc: ace@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Comments on draft-tiloca-ace-oscoap-joining > > Hi Jim, >

[Ace] Comments on draft-tiloca-ace-oscoap-joining

After the interim meeting, I read this document through in order to produce a review. Instead you are going to get a meta-review. I am having a hard to seeing why this document exists in its current form and it is not some type of simple profile of the pub-sub security draft. While I am not sure

Re: [Ace] draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-08 - CWT CBOR Tag

ormann [mailto:c...@tzi.org] > Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 1:32 PM > To: Hannes Tschofenig > Cc: Mike Jones ; Jim Schaad > ; ace@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Ace] draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-08 - CWT CBOR Tag > > On Oct 19, 2017, at 21:30, Hannes Tschofenig > wrote: >

Re: [Ace] draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-08 - CWT CBOR Tag

I don't have any problems with what is here. It boils down to 1. I already know that this is going to be a CWT so I save a byte. 2. I don't know so I waste a tag byte in that case. Most of the time it is going to be the first case, but my code is agnostic about this and will rem

[Ace] draft-palombini-ace-coap-pubsub-profile

After doing some reading elsewhere, I think it would be reasonable to outline the version of security when the pub/sub agent can be trusted. This makes a contrast with this model that people should understand. Jim ___ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org htt

[Ace] Review of draft-palombini-ace-coap-pubsub-profile-01

Here are some comments on this draft. 1. I find it difficult to call this a profile of the Oauth document in one way. This looks to me more of a "This is how you use the Oauth" document. This echoes a comment that I made on the ACE base Oauth document. 2. Introduction: I think you should give

Re: [Ace] Review of draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz-06

-ietf-ace-oauth-authz-06 > > On 2017-08-04 23:41, Jim Schaad wrote: > > As promised I finally got finished with this review. > > Thank you for your very thorough review Jim. Comments inline (note that > there are a few questions as well). > > /Ludwig > > > > &g

[Ace] Review of draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz-06

As promised I finally got finished with this review. 1. Need to decide if /token, /introspect and /authz-info are under /.well-defined or not. If they are then this needs to be noted and there needs to be an IANA action if this has not already been done for OAuth. 2. Add some of the actor term

<    1   2   3   4   >