Re: [Jwt-reg-review] [Ace] Requested review for IANA registration in draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz

Thanks for the updates Lugwig,

Section 6.6. does propose one mitigation for the unbounded memory growth
problem. However, it relies on the AS to do pretty specific things with the
content of other claims for it to even be possible for an RS to perform the
mitigation approach. Do you think, for interoperability, it needs to be
more prescriptive? Like maybe requiring the cti/jti claim with specific
content and characteristics when exi is present or embedding/encoding that
sequence number in the value of the exi itself alongside the lifetime of
the token.

On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 9:16 AM Seitz Ludwig <ludwig.seitz@combitech.se>
wrote:

> Hello Brian,
>
>
>
> Thank you for this review!
>
> I have added text to clarify the formatting of these parameters and claims
> when used in JSON-based interactions.
>
> More comments inline.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Ludwig
>
>
>
> *From:* Ace <ace-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Brian Campbell
> *Sent:* den 10 januari 2020 21:57
> *To:* Ludwig Seitz <ludwig_seitz@gmx.de>
> *Cc:* Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>; jwt-reg-review@ietf.org; Jim Schaad <
> ietf@augustcellars.com>; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>; ace@ietf.org;
> drafts-lastcall@iana.org; Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ace] [Jwt-reg-review] Requested review for IANA
> registration in draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz
>
>
>
> I'm really struggling with understanding what the value of an
> "ace_profile" claim actually would be in a JWT. A JSON string that's the
> profile name (though 5.6.4.3 maybe prohibits
>
> that)?  A JSON number that's an integer matching the CBOR Value? Something
> else?
>
>
>
> [LS] For JSON the string representation is ok, I reworded 5.6.4.3 to
> clarify this.
>
>
>
> Is the value of "exi" in a JWT a JSON number? Seems likely but it's
> something that should probably be made explicit.
>
>
>
> [LS] Now explicit
>
>
>
> Also for "exi", the requirement in 5.8.3. to "keep track of the
> identifiers of tokens containing the "exi" claim that have expired (in
> order to avoid accepting them again)" seems problematic in that it sounds
> like it's mandating an unbounded growth of memory use.
>
>
>
> Section 6.6. proposes a mitigation for the unbounded growth of memory use
> problem. Does that resolve your reservations?
>
>
>
> The draft says that the "cnonce" claim (value) uses binary encoding. What
> does that mean for JSON based JWT?
>
>
>
> [LS] Now Base64 encoded binary for JSON.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 4:35 AM Ludwig Seitz <ludwig_seitz@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> Hello JWT registry reviewers,
>
> the IESG-designated experts for the JWT claims registry have asked me to
> send a review request to you about the claims registered here:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz-29#section-8.12
>
> Thank you in advance for you review comments.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ludwig
>
> _______________________________________________
> Jwt-reg-review mailing list
> Jwt-reg-review@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jwt-reg-review
>
>
> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and
> privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any
> review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited..
> If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
> immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from
> your computer. Thank you.*
>

-- 
_CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and privileged 
material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, 
distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.  If you have 
received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately 
by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from your 
computer. Thank you._