Re: [Ace] AD review of draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize-09

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

>> 
>> I would generally prefer to avoid the need for deterministic/canonical
>> encoding — is there really a need to re-encode the token?
> 
> There is no need to re-encode the token, and I do not expect that this
> would happen if the authorization server has used a finite length.

So would we be better off with:


         info = [
           type : tstr,
           L : uint,
           access_token: bytes
         ]

Where access_token is the token in original encoding?  No need to re-encode the token then.

> I am more than happy to get rid of the ordering constraints on CBOR maps
> but I am not sure about referencing the -bis. Can we do that at this
> stage?

Both documents are in IESG processing, specifically:
dtls-authorize: AD Evaluation::External Party
7049bis: Publication Requested

Potential emergency escape: reference Section 10 of rfc8152bis-struct (which is even further along at IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed).

> Note: Up to now, we could even do without a normative reference to RFC 7049.

Yes, but that’s cheating (indirect normative reference through 8610).

Grüße, Carsten