From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
To: Ludwig Seitz <ludwig.seitz@ri.se>, "ace@ietf.org" <ace@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ace] CWT-PoP & Multiple PoP keys
Thread-Index: AdQIY2SAG/d3FGSqSlGPkPFJdW2VHQAAuX+AABHr2tA=
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 15:48:07 +0000
Message-ID: <SN6PR00MB03018C4863D65694E16F9A18F5770@SN6PR00MB0301.namprd00.prod.outlook.com>
References: <VI1PR0801MB211205E0BA138E58D99E485DFA770@VI1PR0801MB2112.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
 <2e1720cf-ae24-552a-8eff-0fe1aefda46d@ri.se>
In-Reply-To: <2e1720cf-ae24-552a-8eff-0fe1aefda46d@ri.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: microsoft.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 96c99894-1721-4576-d9e5-08d5d6c537d0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 20 Jun 2018 15:48:07.4447 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN6PR00MB0334
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/O0mr9YO0s0QTyl1cR9DdLPpnXww>
Subject: Re: [Ace] CWT-PoP & Multiple PoP keys
X-BeenThere: ace@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 15:48:13 -0000

Good.  Having resolved this, I believe we should be in position to do a rel=
ease addressing the WGLC comments this week.

				-- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Ace <ace-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Ludwig Seitz
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 12:14 AM
To: ace@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ace] CWT-PoP & Multiple PoP keys

On 2018-06-20 08:57, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>=20
> I had a chat with Mike about relaxing the CWT-PoP spec to allow=20
> multiple PoP keys in a single CWT token.
>=20
> He is concerned about the departure from RFC 7800 and, after giving it=20
> a bit more thoughts, I believe there is an issue. Initially, when we=20
> started the work our promise was that this is really just an=20
> alternative encoding of RFC 7800. With changes like those we are=20
> obviously breaking that concept. Having multiple keys within a single=20
> CWT is a corner case and I am not sure anymore whether I indeed want=20
> to go into that direction. In our implementation we are also not using=20
> multiple keys in a single CWT either.
>=20
> Ciao
>=20
> Hannes
>

I agree that having multiple PoP keys in cnf for CWT-PoP seem like overkill=
. After all this is a draft aimed at constrained environments.
I also sympathize with Mike's suggestion to keep CWT-PoP aligned with RFC 7=
800.

/Ludwig


> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are=20
> confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended

Sending confidential email to a public mailing list again Hannes? You are a=
 rebel ;-)


--=20
Ludwig Seitz, PhD
Security Lab, RISE SICS
Phone +46(0)70-349 92 51

_______________________________________________
Ace mailing list
Ace@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace