IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rats] CWT and JWT are good enough?

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 16 September 2019 17:41 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: rats@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rats@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D62C1201E0 for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 10:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=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 j7bDx8bePXp7 for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 10:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C7FF120128 for <rats@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 10:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BB443897B; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 13:39:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBE4371B; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 13:41:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com>
cc: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, rats@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <7EA14733-B470-4365-B4FA-FF2B63695464@island-resort.com>
References: <CDC992AE-B6DB-4BAE-975F-6E2BF9ED2C97@island-resort.com> <CAHbuEH4fisaDTKOzEY2ZEfxiVyfZ4wYibdRzQUYxq4i8a8G_WQ@mail.gmail.com> <7EA14733-B470-4365-B4FA-FF2B63695464@island-resort.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 13:41:24 -0400
Message-ID: <30242.1568655684@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/DVrtujfuwd3PDgt7RvEhkc3FHJI>
Subject: Re: [Rats] CWT and JWT are good enough?
X-BeenThere: rats@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Remote Attestation Procedures <rats.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rats>, <mailto:rats-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rats/>
List-Post: <mailto:rats@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rats-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats>, <mailto:rats-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 17:41:30 -0000

Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com> wrote:
    > My personal chosen path is NOT to raise the issue and live with the
    > issue. Particularly:
    > - The way to do vendor specific non-registered claims is different
    > between CWT and JWT

I think that's okay.  Vendors that want to private things can cope with this,
or likely are just doing one or the other.

    > - All EAT claims are Specification Required. No EAT claims and be just
    > Expert Review.

I can live with that.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email