Hi, Francesca.This all looks good. Did you have any thoughts about being
clearer about the encryption/auth status of the various messages? It would
have helped me,Cheers,ElwynSent from Samsung tablet.
Original message From: Francesca Palombini
Date: 24/08/2020 18:07
(GMT
Sent from Samsung tablet.
Original message From: Ludwig Seitz
Date: 07/01/2020 19:52 (GMT+00:00) To: elwynd ,
gen-...@ietf.org Cc: last-c...@ietf.org,
draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params@ietf.org, ace@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Gen-art]
[Ace] Genart last call review of
draft-ietf
Hi, Ludwig.Having had another look at section 3.1 of
draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession, technically the rules about which keys
have to be present are not part of the syntax of the cnf claim. The point can
be covered by changing '"syntax of the 'cnf' claim"to "syntax and semantics of
the '
Original message From: Ludwig Seitz
Date: 21/12/2019 12:22 (GMT+00:00) To: elwynd ,
elw...@dial.pipex.com Cc: last-c...@ietf.org, gen-...@ietf.org, ace@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [Ace] Genart last call review of
draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params-06 On 2019-12-19 21:23, elwynd wrote:>
Hi, Ludwig.Thanks for the prompt response.Regarding he major issue, I
understand what the intention of the split was, but as far as early
implementations are concerned, there is no such thing as a 'minimal breakage';
unless there is some cunning mechanism in the basic ace-oauth-authz protocol,
