> -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
> the CBOR numeric values used in this
> -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,
>
> Thank you for your review comments.
Looking back to the message I sent on 10/3 I don't believe that the OAuth
requests are the same thing as CWTs and I proposed a solution there about how
to fix thing in the future so that they don't become them.
> -Original Message-
> From: Carsten Bormann
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24,
> -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
On Oct 25, 2018, at 19:41, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> OAuth claim statements too confusing
Indeed, there is a problem there (as with many things inherited from OAuth).
We might want to fix those issues for the purposes ACE, even if it wasn’t in
the domain for the ANIMA work.
Grüße, Carsten
Well, I was a bit terse, was I.
I really meant to address the CWT-like structures, not everything that is ever
encoded in CBOR.
If it doesn’t feel like a claim set, then of course there is no point in
mimicking CWT.
Grüße, Carsten
> On Oct 25, 2018, at 10:45, Olaf Bergmann wrote:
>
>
Hi Jim,
Thank you for your review comments. We agree with all your points, and have
opened issues: https://github.com/ace-wg/ace-oscore-profile/issues to get this
fixed.
Inline some detailed answer.
Thanks,
Francesca
On 22/10/2018, 21:09, "Jim Schaad" wrote:
* Section 1 - I understand
