Re: [COSE] Consensus Call: Adoption of the COSE Token

I would like to withdraw my previous vote. With the assumption that CWT is
defined as a 1-1 mapping of JWT (which is not how it was defined in the
reference below) I don’t have a strong opinion about where it is defined.
But ACE-specific claims of a JWT/CWT (such as D.1.10) should be defined in
ACE. I believe the latter point of view aligns with that expressed by
others.

Göran

On 2015-11-09 10:20, "Göran Selander" <goran.selander@ericsson.com> wrote:

>I vote for C. It would be good if this work could be carried out where
>there is both OAuth competence and constrained node network competence. I
>believe ACE could be a match here since such competences will anyway be
>required to evaluate
>
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-seitz-ace-oauth-authz/
>
>
>which is the preferred starting point for a solution according to the f2f
>meeting. There is already some text on “CBOR Web Token" in appendix D.
>
>Göran
>
>
>On 2015-11-07 19:47, "Jim Schaad" <ietf@augustcellars.com> wrote:
>
>>Either B or C.
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: COSE [mailto:cose-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Justin Richer
>>> Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2015 12:02 AM
>>> To: cose@ietf.org
>>> Subject: [COSE] Consensus Call: Adoption of the COSE Token
>>> 
>>> At the Yokohama meeting, the chairs agreed to do a consensus call
>>>regarding
>>> the adoption and placement of new work to define a COSE Token,
>>>analogous to
>>> the JWT from JOSE. In the room, there was a general sentiment of
>>>support for
>>> the work being done, with the wide adoption of JWT and its driving of
>>>JOSE
>>> being a common theme of precedent. What wasn’t clear is where the work
>>> should be done and to what end it should drive. The six positions we
>>>are asking
>>> the working group to consider and voice their support for are:
>>> 
>>> A) Define the COSE Token within the COSE working group along side the
>>>COSE
>>> Messages (and potentially COSE Auxiliary Algorithms) draft.
>>> B) Define the COSE Token inside the OAuth working group.
>>> C) Define the COSE Token inside the ACE working group.
>>> D) Don’t define the COSE Token anywhere.
>>> E) You need more information to decide.
>>> F) You don’t give a flying rat about the COSE Token.*
>>> 
>>> The consensus call will remain open for two weeks from today, closing
>>>on
>>> November 21, 2015; at which time, hopefully we will have a clear answer
>>>and
>>> direction to point this work.
>>> 
>>> Thank you,
>>>  — Justin & Kepeng, your COSE chairs
>>> 
>>> * I promised those in the room at Yokohama to offer a flying rat
>>>option, for
>>> which I am deeply sorry.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> COSE mailing list
>>> COSE@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>COSE mailing list
>>COSE@ietf.org
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
>
>_______________________________________________
>COSE mailing list
>COSE@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose