Hi Panos,
I wonder what kind of devices you have in mind? On one hand, the devices
are constrained enough not to have resources for generating
cryptographic quality randomness. But they somehow have support for
tamper-resistance identity protection? Is it cheaper to have
tamper-resistance? An
Ø But I don't think we can tell endpoints that they are on their own unless
they get the right hardware or they comply with the ACE-OAuth model, or DOXS.
[This is probably an issue unrelated to EST topic but worthwhile to talk about
nevertheless.]
How do you expect companies to come up with re
Hi Carsten,
Yes, I am talking about the Content-Format numbers for them.
Would rt="ace.est" be the parameter you are talking about?
Ciao
Hannes
-Original Message-
From: Carsten Bormann [mailto:c...@tzi.org]
Sent: 15 May 2018 11:45
To: Hannes Tschofenig
Cc: ace@ietf.org; core
Subject: Re:
I was thinking about media type parameters such as charset="utf-8". The RT
value need to be registered separately, but we can be a bit lazy about that..
Sent from mobile
> On 16. May 2018, at 12:15, Hannes Tschofenig
> wrote:
>
> Hi Carsten,
>
> Yes, I am talking about the Content-Format nu
Forgot to add another example: the content-format numbers for COSE have
parameters.
Sent from mobile
> On 16. May 2018, at 12:26, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>
> I was thinking about media type parameters such as charset="utf-8". The RT
> value need to be registered separately, but we can be a bi
> Hannes: do you have any opinion about the necessity of going through
> /.well-known/core to get the short URL, vs just using a /.well-known/est URL?
(RTT for the lookup vs extra bytes in the URL)
Are you asking me about these two options:
Option #1 - going through /.well-known/core
REQ:
Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>> Hannes: do you have any opinion about the necessity of going through
>> /.well-known/core to get the short URL, vs just using a
>> /.well-known/est URL?
Yes, exactly. Is option #1 useful enough to justify the code to parse
links? Os is the code impact al
I don't have a strong opinion about option #2 appears to be slightly better.
I guess hard-cording URLs will not work
-Original Message-
From: Michael Richardson [mailto:mcr+i...@sandelman.ca]
Sent: 16 May 2018 14:16
To: Hannes Tschofenig
Cc: ace@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ace] Early media
Hello!
A reminder to the WG, draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession is in WGLC.
Please send feedback to the mailing list by Wednesday, May 23.
Thanks,
Roman and Jim
> -Original Message-
> From: Ace [mailto:ace-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roman Danyliw
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2018 6
Michael StJohns wrote:
> Basically, the argument I'm hearing again is that we have to have
> common protocols that work with the least capable devices in the same
> way that they work with more capable devices. Which then is taken to
> mean that we have to limit the security of
Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> I don't have a strong opinion about option #2 appears to be slightly
> better.
Oh, I misread your options before.
Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>> (RTT for the lookup vs extra bytes in the URL)
>> Are you asking me about these two options:
>> Option #1
11 matches
Mail list logo
