Re: [CDNi] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cdni-uri-signing-22.txt

note: we could also use direct section references...

On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 1:05 PM Kevin Ma <kevin.j.ma.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the text Chris,
>
>   Is there a reason to only reference 3.2.8 and not 3.2.9 for form-style
> parameters?
>
>   There is some redundancy in the MUSTs.  What about:
>
> The URI Signing Package will be found by parsing any path-style parameters
> [RFC6570] and form-style parameters [RFC6570] looking for a key name
> matching the URI Signing Package Attribute.  Both path-style parameters
> (generated in the form indicated by Section 3.2.7 of [RFC6570]) and
> form-style parameters (generated in the form indicated by Sections 3.2.8
> and 3.2.9 of [RFC6570]) MUST be supported.  The first matching parameter
> SHOULD be taken to provide the signed JWT, though providing more than one
> matching key is undefined behavior.
>
> thanx!
>
> --  Kevin J. Ma
>
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 2:38 AM Chris Lemmons <alficles@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> To save a click, here's the text:
>>
>> The URI Signing Package will be found by parsing any path-style
>> parameters and
>> form-style parameters looking for a key name matching the URI Signing
>> Package Attribute.
>> Both parameter styles MUST be supported to allow flexibility of operation.
>> The first matching parameter SHOULD be taken to provide the signed
>> JWT, though providing
>> more than one matching key is undefined behavior. Path-style
>> parameters generated in the
>> form indicated by Section 3.2.7 of [RFC6570] MUST be supported.
>> Form-style parameters generated in the form indicated by Section 3.2.8
>> of [RFC6570]
>> MUST be supported.
>>
>> The last two sentences are what I'm proposing we add. This was the
>> simplest variation I could come up with that doesn't add a whole bunch
>> of construction rules to this document, but provides at least one
>> clear MUST-accept implementation for each style that allows a dCDN to
>> be certain that it knows how to find the URIs.
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 8:46 AM Phil Sorber <sorber@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Thanks, I merged two of these, but I think we should have a little more
>> time to think on #72 before we merge it, just because it's been so debated
>> and I don't want to keep changing it.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 1:01 AM Chris Lemmons <alficles@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Fixes for nits, regrettably also including the same ones you just
>> >> fixed in 69: https://github.com/PSUdaemon/URISigningSpec/pull/70
>> >>
>> >> Updates that I _think_ fix the weird figure text? I'm not certain this
>> >> is the best way to do it, but the existing way looks odd. Look at the
>> >> diff linked earlier and check out the figure titles.
>> >> https://github.com/PSUdaemon/URISigningSpec/pull/71
>> >>
>> >> The much-belated text I promised a while back on 6570:
>> >> https://github.com/PSUdaemon/URISigningSpec/pull/72
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 7:55 PM Phil Sorber <sorber@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > https://github.com/PSUdaemon/URISigningSpec/pull/69
>> >> >
>> >> > On Sat, Nov 6, 2021 at 10:02 PM Kevin Ma <kevin.j.ma.ietf@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hi Phil,
>> >> >>
>> >> >>   Thanks for getting the updated draft out.  A couple typos/nits:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>   - section 2.1.10: "for example in" -> "for example, in"
>> >> >>   - section 3.2.1: "MAY bt" -> "MAY be"
>> >> >>   - section 4: "after and access" -> "after an access"
>> >> >>   - section 4.4: remove "against the key issuer with"
>> >> >>   - section 5.2: "Sigbned" -> "Signed"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --  Kevin J. Ma
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 7:12 PM <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>> directories.
>> >> >>> This draft is a work item of the Content Delivery Networks
>> Interconnection WG of the IETF.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>         Title           : URI Signing for Content Delivery Network
>> Interconnection (CDNI)
>> >> >>>         Authors         : Ray van Brandenburg
>> >> >>>                           Kent Leung
>> >> >>>                           Phil Sorber
>> >> >>>         Filename        : draft-ietf-cdni-uri-signing-22.txt
>> >> >>>         Pages           : 42
>> >> >>>         Date            : 2021-10-25
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Abstract:
>> >> >>>    This document describes how the concept of URI Signing supports
>> the
>> >> >>>    content access control requirements of Content Delivery Network
>> >> >>>    Interconnection (CDNI) and proposes a URI Signing method as a
>> JSON
>> >> >>>    Web Token (JWT) profile.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>    The proposed URI Signing method specifies the information
>> needed to
>> >> >>>    be included in the URI to transmit the signed JWT, as well as
>> the
>> >> >>>    claims needed by the signed JWT to authorize a User Agent
>> (UA).  The
>> >> >>>    mechanism described can be used both in CDNI and single Content
>> >> >>>    Delivery Network (CDN) scenarios.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> >> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cdni-uri-signing/
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> There is also an htmlized version available at:
>> >> >>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cdni-uri-signing-22
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> >> >>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-cdni-uri-signing-22
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> >> >>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >> >>> CDNi mailing list
>> >> >>> CDNi@ietf.org
>> >> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cdni
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > CDNi mailing list
>> >> > CDNi@ietf.org
>> >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cdni
>>
>