On 2019-12-22 19:27, elwynd wrote:
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 'cnf' claim" in each case. However, the second look threw up another point: Figure 2 in s3.2 gives a Symetric key example - I think this should use an Encrypted_COSE_Key (or Encrypted_COSE_Key0) as described in section 3.3 of draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession. Otherwise I think we are done. Eventually we will get to Christmas! Cheers, Elwyn
Hello Elwyn, I hope you had a merry Christmas and a happy new year's eve. I have updated the draft to -10, fixing the phrasing to your suggestion from the first paragraph above in various places (and an issue that came up during IANA review). Given my argument for not having the encrypted COSE_Key in figure 2 I left that part as it was. Please indicate whether this is acceptable with the given explanation. Regards, Ludwig -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
