Re: [Lake] PRs on encoding clarification and invalid test vectors

[Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Sep 9, 2023 at 2:30 AM John Mattsson <john.mattsson=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>
>
>
> https://github.com/lake-wg/edhoc/pull/442
>
>
>
> Is a PR to the traces draft with invalid test vectors. The work before
> focused more or less only on valid test vectors. I wish we had looked at
> this earlier, but I think it very good that we did now.
>

For the traces draft, just submit a new draft please. It has not yet
entered the RFC Editor queue.


> https://github.com/lake-wg/edhoc/pull/446
>
>
>
> Is my collection of things that are not optimal in the EDHOC draft. These
> were found during the work on invalid traces. The PR contains two things:
>
>
>
> 1. Sender side and wire format: Minor clarifications and corrections on
> encoding. These are editorial thing that I intend to bring up in my AUTH48
> review. I just did this part of my AUTH48 review early.
>

>
> 2. Receiver side: Some suggested changes to what a receiver does with
> various types of invalid encoding. This would involve changes to RFC2119
> words and therefore goes beyond clarification and corrections and I
> therefore send it to the WG. I think the topic of what to do with different
> types of invalid messages was ignored a bit. These changes do not change
> the requirements on the sender or the wire format at all.
>

Please send an email with instructions to the RFC Editor (
[e-mail]) now, and CC: me (as AD). Please do not wait for
AUTH48.

 I think the current text on when to abort invalid messages is not optimal.
> On the otherhand it is things that are 100% in the receiver implementations
> and does not affect the sender or the wire format. While changes would be
> good it is not 100% essential, a receiver implementation can do this
> anyway. I don't know what "pause the publication process" would mean. These
> changes would clearly need consensus in the WG, but I don’t know what the
> exact process would be. I assume that is partly up to the AD.
>

Create a PR, notify the list. Then after a few days send email to the RFC
Editor and CC: me (as AD). I guess these two requests to the RFC Editor
should be folded into one request though.

Paul



>
> Cheers,
>
> John
>
> *From: *Lake <[e-mail]> on behalf of Paul Wouters
> <paul.wouters=[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Friday, 8 September 2023 at 15:59
> *To: *John Mattsson <john.mattsson=[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [Lake] PRs on encoding clarification and invalid test
> vectors
>
> On Sep 8, 2023, at 04:52, John Mattsson <john.mattsson=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
> 
>
> The plan is to:
>
> - include the traces PR in the next version of the draft.
>
> - include the EDHOC PR duing AUTH48.
>
>
>
> No PRs should be merged during AUTH48.
>
>
>
> Are you talking about the edhoc draft or the edhoc-traces draft ?
>
>
>
> We can pause the publication process if needed.
>
>
>
> Paul
>