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

[Kevin Ma <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > https://github.com/PSUdaemon/URISigningSpec/pull/69
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Nov 6, 2021 at 10:02 PM Kevin Ma <[e-mail]>
> 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 <[e-mail]> 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
> >> >>> [e-mail]
> >> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cdni
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > CDNi mailing list
> >> > [e-mail]
> >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cdni
>