Hi Niki, Thank you for going through the findings point by point, and for opening #1040.
Your readings match the aat-02 profile except in one place, C10: the verifier currently accepts any "scheme:" followed by non-space characters, which is looser than absolute-URI (it would accept a fragment, for example). I will tighten that check, and the next revision of the report will record the readings you gave here. I will check the issues against -03 when it is out. Best, Azat вт, 3 нояб. 2026 г. в 20:12, Niki Aimable Niyikiza <[email protected]>: > > Hi Azat and Songbo, > > Azat, thank you for the report, and for the care that went into it. The suite > on main is still the file you ran, so the result holds for the current > version. > > For §6.5, here's the intent I had in mind for -02: > > - C1: a header with duplicate members should be rejected, for the same reason > as claims, as your implementation does. > - C3: agreed, it doesn't change any verdict. > - C5: aat_aud is a single string, as Table 5 says. The pointer to aud is > about what it means, not its form. > - C6: a root signed by the shared key passes under either one of the issuers. > What the enforcement point trusts is the key, and 3k only checks that the > root names an issuer that key is trusted for. > - C8: a well-formed public key for a signature algorithm, under its kty's > rules (RFC 8037 for OKP). And you're right that J.24.10 expects a narrower > step than its own description allows. > - C10: absolute-URI, as in RFC 3986. > > C2 is a good catch. I'm looking at addressing all ten in -03, and I'll reply > on the issues you opened as well. > > Of the four points still open from -01, B12 and B15 work the way your aat-02 > profile has them: an exact comparison, and sub ignored. B9 and B18 are by > design. > > Songbo, thanks for the C6 cases. All seven fit the reading I described above. > Your paired control is in the suite as J.21.22, a root with the first > anchor's iss signed by the second anchor's key. The suite on main has no case > yet where two anchors share a key or an issuer, since its two anchors differ > in both. Adding those is on my list for -03, along with cases for C1 and C5. > > > Best, > Niki > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2026 at 1:03 AM Azat Davliatshin <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Hi Songbo, >> >> Thank you very much, both for rerunning the verifier against the >> AAT-02 corpus and for the C6 cases. I checked the bundle against >> d813114 and got the same 13/13 and identical anchor-results.json. The >> paired negative control (issuer and key in different anchor records) >> is exactly the case the existing vectors cannot reach, since all their >> anchors have distinct keys. >> >> Yes, they would be useful. Could you open them as a pull request from >> a fork of github.com/azatdavliatshin/aat? That way the authorship and >> the Apache-2.0 contribution stay in the history, and I can review and >> merge there. >> >> One correction to the context: the draft authors are not aware of C6 >> yet. I have not filed it with them so far; I plan to open an issue on >> tenuo-ai/tenuo today and will post the link to this thread. Until they >> answer, the tests document this implementation's interpretation, as >> your README already says. >> >> If you agree, I would also like to acknowledge your rerun and the C6 >> tests in the next revision of the report. >> >> Best, >> Azat >> >> вт, 3 нояб. 2026 г. в 05:39, Songbo Bu <[email protected]>: >> > >> > Hi Azat, >> > >> > I reran your verifier at d813114 against the bundled AAT-02 corpus. All >> > 229 vectors agree in the existing presentation/array checks, including the >> > denial-step and tracked replay-state checks. This uses the bundled oracle, >> > not a separate implementation. >> > >> > For C6, I added seven small issuer/key-pair regressions. They cover a >> > shared key under two issuer names in both orders, wrong-issuer and >> > wrong-key controls, and a key-rotation ordering. The paired negative >> > control places the correct issuer and the verifying key in different >> > anchor records; it denies at 3k rather than combining them. >> > >> > All seven pass without changing the verifier. The small attached bundle >> > contains the test, patch, results and reproduction instructions. >> > >> > Would these be useful as regression coverage for your stated >> > interpretation while the draft authors clarify C6? >> > >> > Best, >> > Songbo >> _______________________________________________ >> WIMSE mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > > > -- > Niki Aimable Niyikiza > Tenuo _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
