Hi Mike! Thanks for publishing -04. The changes made in this version address the last of my WGLC comments per [Danyliw #7] and [Danyliw #12]. More details below:
> From: Mike Jones [mailto:michael.jo...@microsoft.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 3:43 AM > To: Roman Danyliw <r...@cert.org>; ace@ietf.org > Cc: Jim Schaad <i...@augustcellars.com> > Subject: RE: Summarizing WGLC discussion of > draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession > > Thanks for the useful summary, Roman. Replies are inline below > prefixed by "Mike>". I've just published draft -04, which contains the > small number of changes described below. I believe that this completes > resolution of the WGLC feedback. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ace <ace-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Roman Danyliw > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 12:56 AM > To: ace@ietf.org > Subject: [Ace] Summarizing WGLC discussion of > draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession [snip] > [Schaad #16] Section 4 - Are audience restrictions not done in CWT? -- same > issues as [Danyliw #12] > > Mike> All claims in CWTs (and JWTs) are optional, including the "aud" > (audience) > claim. Particular profiles can suggest and require particular claims, as > this > profile does. I have deleted the unnecessary middle sentence, which > [Danyliw #12] correctly pointed out broke up the logical flow of the > exposition. > Thanks for pointing this out. This change addresses my concerns. [snip] > [Danyliw #7] Page 6, Section 3.3, The sentence "The COSE_Key could, for > instance, be encrypted using a COSE_Encrypt0 representation using the > AES-CCM-16-64-128 algorithm" seems out of place. What is this text > explaining relative to the examples? > > Mike> Thanks. I deleted the confusing and unnecessary sentence. This change addresses my concern. Roman _______________________________________________ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
