Re: [Ace] Working group adoption of draft-vanderstok-ace-est

I support the adoption of this draft. There is a great need for a standards based mechanism for secure enrollment of constrained endpoints, which this draft provides. Thanks Rupak -Original Message- From: Ace [mailto:ace-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jim Schaad Sent: Tuesday, January

Re: [Ace] shepherd review of draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-11

On Feb 2, 2018, at 23:24, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > Finally, in the acknowledgments, we can ask the RFC Editor to use > the non-ASCII "Gőran" if he so desires. (Last I heard the tooling > isn't there to use non-ASCII for internet drafts yet, though.) We have the same issue in

Re: [Ace] CBOR Web Token (CWT) draft addressing shepherd review comments

» Depending upon the values being requested, registration requests are evaluated on a Standards Track Required, Specification Required, Expert Review, or Private Use basis [RFC8126] « This might give the impression that IANA registrations can be made on a “Private Use” basis. RFC

[Ace] CBOR Web Token (CWT) draft addressing shepherd review comments

The CBOR Web Token (CWT) specification has been updated to address the shepherd comments by Benjamin Kaduk. Changes were: * Updated the RFC 5226 reference to RFC 8126. * Made the IANA registration criteria consistent across sections. * Stated that registrations for the limited set

Re: [Ace] Working group adoption of draft-vanderstok-ace-est

I support the adoption of this draft. The industrial IoT sector is establishing certificate based secure communications and will need a secure means to manage these certificates. With the use of CoAp in that space, this draft can be the what/how to achieve just that. Warm regards, Nancy On

[Ace] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-12.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments WG of the IETF. Title : CBOR Web Token (CWT) Authors : Michael B. Jones

Re: [Ace] shepherd review of draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-11

Thanks for your useful review, Ben. I believe that https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-12 addresses all your comments and is ready to send to Kathleen. Best wishes, -- Mike -Original Message- From:

Re: [Ace] CBOR Web Token (CWT) draft addressing shepherd review comments

Good point. I'll make a note to update the description the next time we publish a draft to not imply that values in the Private Use range are registered. I don't think it's worth publishing another draft for just this until we receive Kathleen's AD review, at which point I'll address it.

[Ace] shepherd review of draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-11

Hi all, We're getting ready to send this to Kathleen for processing (hopefully to finish before her term as AD does!), but there are a few nits that should be fixed with a new rev before we actually push the button. We currently have an informational reference to RFC 5226, which has since been

Re: [Ace] shepherd review of draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-11

Thanks for the detailed read, Ben. Will do. -- Mike -Original Message- From: Benjamin Kaduk [mailto:ka...@mit.edu] Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 2:25 PM To: ace@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-to...@ietf.org Subject: shepherd review of

Re: [Ace] Working group adoption of draft-vanderstok-ace-est

Hi Stefan, Thanks for the support. I see your point of view; We will look at the text to avoid suggesting that EST/https and EST/coaps cannot exist together. Peter Beck, Stefan schreef op 2018-02-01 12:51: +1 I support adoption, as it perfectly complements the existing EST work. So far,