Re: [COSE] [IANA #1284212] expert review for draft-ietf-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers (cose)

[Michael Jones <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for your detailed review and resulting pull request, Carsten.  I've reviewed and merged it and published -10 incorporating it.  See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers/.

If you and/or Francesca could approve the IANA registration today, that would prepare us for the telechat on the 30th.

                                Thanks again!
                                -- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2023 2:52 AM
To: Michael Jones <[e-mail]>
Cc: Francesca Palombini <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; lgl island-resort.com <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [COSE] [IANA #1284212] expert review for draft-ietf-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers (cose)

Hi Mike,

the text of -09 is not yet in the repository, so I made a pull request to the state of main in https://github.com/tplooker/draft-ietf-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers:

https://github.com/tplooker/draft-ietf-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers/pull/14

This PR avoids the nebulous term profile introduced in -09.
It also makes the requirement for indicating the intended interpretation a protocol requirement, instead of burying it in the security considerations.
It is explicit that it is the security (integrity protection and authentication) of the *combination* of the CWT Claims header parameter and of the method of conveying the intended interpretation governs the allowable usage of the interpreted information.

Grüße, Carsten


> On 2023-11-14, at 19:09, Michael Jones <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi Francesca,
>
> Now that we have an agreed-upon strategy in which the lake-edhoc and draft-ietf-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers header parameters are distinct, can you please reply-all updating your review to approve the registration?  That should put us in good shape for the November 30th Telechat.
>
> FYI, Hannes replied updating his IoTDir review saying that the spec is ready - which he did in response to the security considerations updates we made together in https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers-09.html.
>
> Carsten, in response to your feedback, -09 now also says that the profile used defines the semantics for the CWT claims used.
>
>                                Thanks both,
>                                -- Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: COSE <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Michael Jones
> Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2023 3:54 AM
> To: Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Francesca Palombini <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; lgl island-resort.com <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [COSE] [IANA #1284212] expert review for draft-ietf-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers (cose)
>
> I created https://github.com/tplooker/draft-ietf-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers/pull/13 to describe the non-CBOR payload use case in response to Hannes' IotDir review.  It also says that profiles define the semantics of the claims used, in response to further feedback from Carsten.
>
> Reviews requested!
>
>                                -- Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 11:46 AM
> To: Michael Jones <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Francesca Palombini <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; lgl island-resort.com <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [COSE] [IANA #1284212] expert review for draft-ietf-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers (cose)
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> I was planning to send you (a PR with) some clarifying editorial changes first.
> The week is quite full...
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
>
>> On Nov 8, 2023, at 00:29, Michael Jones <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> As designated experts, can you please reply-all saying that you approve of the registration proposed in https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers-08.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> COSE mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose