On Ben's (2): "The only things that were removed that I wanted to check if we
should think about keeping was the note that the same key might be referred to
by different key IDs in messages directed to different recipients. What do
people think about that?" I'm fine restoring that text.
Does one of you have the time to create a PR today making the two changes?
I’ll then be able to review it and publish sometime in the next 24 hours. Or
if not, I’ll plan to do it myself while flying back from Korea to the US
tomorrow.
On 25/09/2019 02:23, Mike Jones wrote:
I'm fine with us making both of the proposed changes.
Thanks,
-- Mike
+1
--
Ludwig Seitz, PhD
Security Lab, RISE
Phone +46(0)70-349 92 51
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic
The IESG has received a request from the Authentication and Authorization for
Constrained Environments WG (ace) to consider the following document: -
'Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for CBOR Web Tokens (CWTs)'
as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks,
On 25/09/2019 10:13, Mike Jones wrote:
Does one of you have the time to create a PR today making the two
changes? I’ll then be able to review it and publish sometime in the
next 24 hours. Or if not, I’ll plan to do it myself while flying back
from Korea to the US tomorrow.
Hi Ben,
Thank you again for the additional feedback.
The changes are summarized in the git issue
https://github.com/SanKumar2015/EST-coaps/issues/150#issuecomment-535065314 I
mostly made all the suggested text changes, summarized our discussion about
extended-master-secret. I also made a
