IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ace] question about wrong types

Samuel Erdtman <samuel@erdtman.se> Mon, 24 October 2016 15:42 UTC

Return-Path: <samuel@erdtman.se>
X-Original-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4CF01295BA for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 08:42:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=erdtman-se.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j5-8VXOcIghy for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 08:42:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x231.google.com (mail-wm0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 099A5129569 for <ace@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 08:42:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x231.google.com with SMTP id f193so128232067wmg.0 for <ace@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 08:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=erdtman-se.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=a8UrcufJeRMmRqipKwffN9I18tSi7rJ1QlYHSGY60EM=; b=JQ0Nrj89xJBWMP0nMtUEZM4TlKqSiG6Tz8CttZ3BCOQnvPwMyBw+cldCRVXY2GNlqy r637k4twO5mlhBrRwTdKZNvOan14XbmHgHzWVAZexJC+DgvQW94TpRHle7PKd46PITQi 8PDdERdZsYZ5bebEHpgAbw3UBpYrtXCWy8mXs5PEY+AfmJa4L6tcDbSbgdpvFcVRbUpV 77NuUqZSXoBaRX62SLQnDjL/vCfhFBtiGgqDoxuaIWzmT1E+EE2p1NCJSprhh92ki7kX AXKuBxqcwGhnjA4i7N2t+FPg2bHgoQ5fb2s70dyJKJufpHzQeHbd68B+pTW7aIQvRcob yzUg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=a8UrcufJeRMmRqipKwffN9I18tSi7rJ1QlYHSGY60EM=; b=Nzf/hk6um7UbTK2pVS+CHuYnIRwq1MUUx/sEd9F/rBNuAn0JUBxoh+ap32bOSNZx+1 RWmLBt4RaOow2q21+nfcr0huLZDLJpyFdQbok41A+AHU243wzXk6TbppFnhlZJXnpRBj wIQQh54OmU2r1XvCCXS3GW9aXemL7D79IrvmBKVtpNglcS2M3Te5NgOSlAMlgZnihzQ2 F3vAFG4M6Ij1/kQ9aSkBqB24exuhCq9jme94uiMlaxzy0bMGQZ9gpTkXqnlJEW+pG2vG rM/9WVzh0y9oIijMoUly8TZdPRFDeY3St+mPANMpg+XsBufF0pSikb54rRaqe28JPFuf A4ig==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RnnOmWlWYGXCmTqKutZdmvqXxRdvUCYjYORK6NrEzIbloNdf0yENIwlq8+7Tl6Wjo0Z1zL76ppKI+MsGg==
X-Received: by 10.28.40.67 with SMTP id o64mr19368503wmo.5.1477323732602; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 08:42:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.194.172.232 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 08:42:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <094701d22c19$90a85080$b1f8f180$@augustcellars.com>
References: <094701d22c19$90a85080$b1f8f180$@augustcellars.com>
From: Samuel Erdtman <samuel@erdtman.se>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:42:12 +0200
Message-ID: <CAF2hCbZiuBUQUaWS+SkK8W+wduOep=TMeH1gXysbw_A8eqxe8A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114973c24cebb5053f9e3cb5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/DyPY-16gPA_iS89oczffyjNXthc>
Cc: draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token@ietf.org, ace@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ace] question about wrong types
X-BeenThere: ace@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments \(ace\)" <ace.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ace>, <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ace/>
List-Post: <mailto:ace@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace>, <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 15:42:17 -0000

Hi,

I would opt for reject, and if the we think it is to narrow to require the
tag then we should explicitly change that.

//Samuel

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 6:05 AM, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> wrote:

> What is the correct behavior if the type of a value is incorrect?  Is the
> CWT to be rejected or is it optional for the application if it is rejected.
> As an example, what happens if the "iat" claim name is associated with a
> CBOR Type 0 instead of using the Tag #6.1 in front of the type 0 value.
>
> Jim
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ace mailing list
> Ace@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email