Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> writes: >>> >>> 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.
That is what I wanted to hear. >> 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 Looking at the deterministic encoding (Section 4.2 of draft-ietf-cbor-7049bis-14), I am happy referencing that instead of canonical CBOR. Any objections? Grüße Olaf _______________________________________________ Ace mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
