Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November)

@mit.edu>; ace@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November) On Dec 11, 2017, at 12:02, Esko Dijk <esko.d...@philips.com> wrote: > > given that a CBOR decoder would normally ignore tags If you are talking about CBOR tags (I’ve lost the conte

Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November)

On Dec 11, 2017, at 12:02, Esko Dijk wrote: > > given that a CBOR decoder would normally ignore tags If you are talking about CBOR tags (I’ve lost the context of the current discussion): A generic CBOR decoder would normally present those to the application. Simply

Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November)

com>; Samuel Erdtman <sam...@erdtman.se> Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <ka...@mit.edu>; ace@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November) Hello Mike, My intention was to have "no extra code in recipients that verifies absence of tags".

Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November)

2017 14:46 To: Esko Dijk <esko.d...@philips.com>; Samuel Erdtman <sam...@erdtman.se> Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <ka...@mit.edu>; ace@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November) Requiring extra code in recipients to ignore tags that already must not

Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November)

.org Subject: Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November) thanks for persisting See inline On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Esko Dijk <esko.d...@philips.com<mailto:esko.d...@philips.com>> wrote: Thanks Samuel, I agree with your answers and proposed acti

Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November)

CoAP(S) here since the media type is for HTTP(S) and not CoAP(S) and it does state that "and other transports". For CoAP(S) we register the CoAP Content-Format that maps to this media type. Best regards Esko Dijk -Original Message- From: Ace [mailto:ace-boun...@ietf.org<

Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November)

ity > tokens over HTTP(S) and other transports" > -> can already mention CoAP/CoAPs here ? > It is not obvious that we should mention CoAP(S) here since the media type is for HTTP(S) and not CoAP(S) and it does state that "and other transports". For CoAP(S) we regi

Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November)

COSE CBOR tag"? 9.2.1 "Applications that use this media type: IoT applications sending security tokens over HTTP(S) and other transports" -> can already mention CoAP/CoAPs here ? Best regards Esko Dijk -Original Message- From: Ace [mailto:ace-boun...@ietf.org] On Be

Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November)

Thanks for the review Ludwig, it is really appreciated. see inline On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Ludwig Seitz wrote: > Hi ACE, > > I have only some nits on the CWT draft (see below). > > > /Ludwig > > > > I'm not

Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November)

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:55:46AM +0100, Carsten Bormann wrote: > Hi Ludwig, > > > I'm not sure what the RFC editors prefer as affiliation > > (I've seen both): > > > > -- > > E. Wahlstroem > > > > -- OR > > E. Wahlstroem > > (no affiliation) > > — > > I don’t know what the RFC editor

Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November)

Hi Ludwig, > I'm not sure what the RFC editors prefer as affiliation > (I've seen both): > > -- > E. Wahlstroem > > -- OR > E. Wahlstroem > (no affiliation) > — I don’t know what the RFC editor prefers her, but I find “no affiliation” jarring — leaving the space open is much better. > === >

Re: [Ace] WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token (ends 29 November)

Reminder: there is only one week left in this WGLC. -Ben On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 12:24:56PM -0500, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > This message begins a working group last call for > draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token for submission as a Standards-Track RFC, > ending at 23:59 PST on Wednesday 29 November,