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

[Olaf Bergmann <[e-mail]>]

Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> writes:

>>> 
>>> 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.

That is what I wanted to hear.

>> 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

Looking at the deterministic encoding (Section 4.2 of
draft-ietf-cbor-7049bis-14), I am happy referencing that instead of
canonical CBOR. Any objections?

Grüße
Olaf