Re: [CDNi] URI Signing Signed Token Chaining refactor

Ok, I'll put together a PR.

Thanks.

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 4:39 PM Ray van Brandenburg <ray@tiledmedia.com>
wrote:

> Works for me.
>
> Ray
>
> > On 19 Jul 2017, at 16:38, Kevin J. Ma <kevin.j.ma.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm good with replacing "chaining" with "renewal".
> >
> > Ray?
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On Jul 19, 2017, at 10:36 AM, Matthew A. Miller <
> linuxwolf@outer-planes.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Even simply 'Token Renewal' would be perfectly fine.  I'm most concerned
> >> about the 'Chain' part.
> >>
> >>
> >> - m&m
> >>
> >> Matthew A. Miller
> >> < http://goo.gl/LM55L >
> >>
> >>> On 7/19/17 4:35 PM, Kevin J. Ma wrote:
> >>> how do you feel about "short-lived token renewal"?
> >>>
> >>> --  Kevin J. Ma
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>
> >>>> On Jul 19, 2017, at 10:27 AM, Matthew A. Miller <
> linuxwolf@outer-planes.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Making it (a little bit) more generic makes sense.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm not sure about the name 'Signed Token Chain', but I don't have a
> >>>> better one.  In cryptographic circles, "chain" has certain
> implications
> >>>> that this document is not expressing.  The "next" item in the chain is
> >>>> supposed to be cryptographically tied to the "previous" item in the
> >>>> chain by using (a hash of, or the exact value of) the previous token
> >>>> when generating the next token.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't know that that binding property is required here, so I'm not
> >>>> suggesting a change in the protocol.  I do worry, however, that the
> >>>> language may potentially confuse (or worse, mislead) people about the
> >>>> security properties this document is providing.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> - m&m
> >>>>
> >>>> Matthew A. Miller
> >>>> < http://goo.gl/LM55L >
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 7/19/17 4:14 PM, Ray van Brandenburg wrote:
> >>>>> Yes, good point!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Although I can’t think of another use case from the top of my head,
> I don’t see a good reason to limit it to HAS either.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ray
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 19 Jul 2017, at 15:51, Kevin J. Ma <kevin.j.ma.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (as an individual) I agree with making the section more generic and
> citing HAS as a use case for token chaining.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Jul 19, 2017, at 9:43 AM, Phil Sorber <sorber@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Since we have added the HAS content I have been thinking about how
> specific we have made it. Perhaps just specifying a method for token
> chaining, and then citing HAS as a use case makes more sense. I wanted to
> get some opinions on it before I make those changes. It shouldn't be that
> big of a change, just taking the HAS specific stuff and putting it in a
> lower "Use Case" sub-section at the bottom and leaving everything else as a
> "Signed Token Chaining" section.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks.
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> CDNi mailing list
> >>>>>>> CDNi@ietf.org
> >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cdni
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
>
>