Re: [Id-event] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-secevent-token-02
Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de> Thu, 03 August 2017 15:03 UTC
Return-Path: <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>
X-Original-To: id-event@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: id-event@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A94C132493 for <id-event@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Aug 2017 08:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0JVlvB7O3Zdq for <id-event@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Aug 2017 08:03:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailext.sit.fraunhofer.de (mailext.sit.fraunhofer.de [141.12.72.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F4D3132479 for <id-event@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Aug 2017 08:03:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sit.fraunhofer.de (mail.sit.fraunhofer.de [141.12.84.171]) by mailext.sit.fraunhofer.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id v73F3OYq001157 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <id-event@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Aug 2017 17:03:26 +0200
Received: from [134.102.163.120] (134.102.163.120) by mail.sit.fraunhofer.de (141.12.84.171) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.361.1; Thu, 3 Aug 2017 17:03:19 +0200
To: id-event@ietf.org
References: <e6649728-f94a-93f5-9885-c948a5b0ed49@gmail.com> <CAGdjJpJtfV9q2iaL-uao1b7XpQjx5uJrX=fnoM36POXLFYrqow@mail.gmail.com>
From: Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>
Message-ID: <fa06137b-516f-4a57-8ed5-08cd2cc63af6@sit.fraunhofer.de>
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2017 17:03:18 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAGdjJpJtfV9q2iaL-uao1b7XpQjx5uJrX=fnoM36POXLFYrqow@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Originating-IP: [134.102.163.120]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/id-event/cvxnJDUZIRfF0fmgdnx6FxLYB3Y>
Subject: Re: [Id-event] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-secevent-token-02
X-BeenThere: id-event@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A mailing list to discuss the potential solution for a common identity event messaging format and distribution system." <id-event.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/id-event>, <mailto:id-event-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/id-event/>
List-Post: <mailto:id-event@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:id-event-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/id-event>, <mailto:id-event-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2017 15:03:30 -0000
Hello, to me, the "audience" claim seems to be a good choice here. Viele Grüße, Henk On 08/02/2017 11:45 PM, Marius Scurtescu wrote: > The abstract mentions "issuer" and "receiver" in the last sentence. > "receiver" does not sound right (that should be used in the context of a > transmitter), but I don't have a better suggestion. Audience? > > The last paragraph of section 1 mentions "subscriber". I think it should > be either "receiver" or "audience". > > The explanation for figure 1 states that the issuer denotes the > transmitter. If the issuer and the transmitter are assumed to be the > same entity, then the transmitter definition in section 1.2 should make > that clear. > > Figure 3, I think the "sub" claim should be nested in the event, next to > the issuer that provides the correct context. The "iss" and "sub" > definitions in 2.1 also touch on this, providing conflicting advice. > > Section 2,1, definition of "nbf". The definition says that this is the > event time. I see two problems: > - the name suggest "not before", not exactly the same as event time > - there can be multiple events > maybe this claim should be dropped? > > Section 2.1, definition of "exp". Omitting this claim is the short term > solution to the confusion issue. Why not mention that and that it SHOULD > NOT be used? > > Section 2.1, definition of "events". It states that all events must > refer to the same logical event. Lately in discussions we reached the > conclusion that all events in a SET should be defined in the same > profile, which is a stronger requirement. I think this definition should > mention that. > > Regarding events and profiles. There was a proposal to add a new claim > to uniquely identify the profile. I think we need to discuss that. > > Figure 5. Maybe a signed example would be better, especially that the > next paragraph mentions that signatures or encryption should be used. > > Section 4.5, second paragraph. Mentions that "nonce" is also required, > but that is not actually true. Id Tokens issued at the token endpoint > for example will not have it. I suggest we drop the whole paragraph. > > > Marius > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com > <mailto:yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote: > > This is to announce working group last call on this draft > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-secevent-token/ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-secevent-token/>). > > Please send your comments to the list. Even if you are perfectly > happy with the draft, please let us know that you support its > publication as-is by posting to the list. > > Because of the summer holidays, this last call is open for 3 weeks, > until Aug. 21. > > Thanks, > Dick and Yaron > > _______________________________________________ > Id-event mailing list > Id-event@ietf.org <mailto:Id-event@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/id-event > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/id-event> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Id-event mailing list > Id-event@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/id-event >
- [Id-event] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-secevent-t… Yaron Sheffer
- Re: [Id-event] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-seceve… Mike Jones
- Re: [Id-event] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-seceve… John Bradley
- Re: [Id-event] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-seceve… William Denniss
- Re: [Id-event] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-seceve… Phil Hunt
- Re: [Id-event] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-seceve… M.Lizar@OCG
- Re: [Id-event] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-seceve… Nat Sakimura
- Re: [Id-event] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-seceve… Phil Hunt
- Re: [Id-event] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-seceve… Adam Dawes
- Re: [Id-event] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-seceve… Richard Backman, Annabelle
- Re: [Id-event] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-seceve… Phil Hunt
- Re: [Id-event] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-seceve… Richard Backman, Annabelle
- Re: [Id-event] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-seceve… Phil Hunt
- Re: [Id-event] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-seceve… Richard Backman, Annabelle
- Re: [Id-event] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-seceve… Marius Scurtescu
- Re: [Id-event] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-seceve… Henk Birkholz
- [Id-event] "aud" vs. receiver issue raised in WGLC Phil Hunt
- Re: [Id-event] "aud" vs. receiver issue raised in… Mike Jones
- Re: [Id-event] "aud" vs. receiver issue raised in… Marius Scurtescu
- Re: [Id-event] "aud" vs. receiver issue raised in… Phil Hunt
- Re: [Id-event] "aud" vs. receiver issue raised in… Marius Scurtescu
- Re: [Id-event] "aud" vs. receiver issue raised in… Phil Hunt
- Re: [Id-event] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-seceve… Mike Jones
- Re: [Id-event] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-seceve… Mike Jones
- Re: [Id-event] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-seceve… Mike Jones
- Re: [Id-event] "aud" vs. receiver issue raised in… Marius Scurtescu
- Re: [Id-event] "aud" vs. receiver issue raised in… Phil Hunt (IDM)
- Re: [Id-event] "aud" vs. receiver issue raised in… Marius Scurtescu
- Re: [Id-event] "aud" vs. receiver issue raised in… Phil Hunt (IDM)
- Re: [Id-event] "aud" vs. receiver issue raised in… Mike Jones
- Re: [Id-event] "aud" vs. receiver issue raised in… Phil Hunt
- Re: [Id-event] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-seceve… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Id-event] "aud" vs. receiver issue raised in… Mike Jones
- Re: [Id-event] "aud" vs. receiver issue raised in… Phil Hunt