Re: [Id-event] Thread: Clarifying use of sub and iss in SET tokens

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

I can get behind that statement! :)

(Now just to make it clear in which cases they actually are required to
be identical, whether that's subject to an OOB agreement between the
parties involved, etc....)

-Ben

On 03/06/2017 07:02 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
>
> I agree that if the two pieces of information in two fields are
> allowed to be different but happen to be the same, that both fields
> should be carried in the SET with identical values.  What I was
> talking about was the case in which two fields are required to be
> identical.  That’s the case in which duplication is harmful.
>
>  
>
>                                                                 -- Mike
>
>  
>
> *From:*Benjamin Kaduk [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Monday, March 6, 2017 4:55 PM
> *To:* Mike Jones <[e-mail]>; Justin Richer
> <[e-mail]>; Phil Hunt (IDM) <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* ID Events Mailing List <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [Id-event] Thread: Clarifying use of sub and iss in SET
> tokens
>
>  
>
> On 03/06/2017 06:39 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
>
>     Justin, I suspect you didn’t see my earlier reply to Phil’s note
>     that you also replied to, so I’m repeating it here and sending it
>     to you directly.  (It wouldn’t be the first time that DMARC
>     policies caused some of my contributions to be not received by
>     some participants. :-( )
>
>      
>
>     Agreed that this is unclear.  Duplicating information in a
>     protocol **always** introduces an unnecessary error case – the
>     need to define how to handle the situation in which two pieces of
>     information that are required to be identical are different. 
>     Information in a SET should occur at most once.
>
>      
>
>
> That seems a dangerous road to tread, as it requires care in defining
> "information" -- duplicating the same data strings at different levels
> of the hierarchy of a JSON object may very well not be duplicating
> information, due to the extra context provided by the hierarchy.  In
> my mind, it's not a clear case that you should never send the same
> name/value multiple times in different parts of an object, as
> sometimes it is good to keep the semantic separation clear.
>
> -Ben
>