Re: [Rats] UJCS standardization (relates to UCCS WG last call)

["lgl island-resort.com" <[e-mail]>]

I’ve created the PR here<https://github.com/ietf-rats-wg/draft-ietf-rats-uccs/pull/18> to add UJCS support.

- Renamed to “UCS” for Unsigned Claim Set, but don’t mind “UTCS" for Unsigned Token Claim Set

- Mostly I just changed “UCCS” to “UCS” and “CWT” to “CWT/JWT” through out the document.

- I added CDDL that has nothing to do with EAT:
   - Corrected UCCS CDDL — previous CDDL was missing definition of tagged and untagged
   - New CDDL for UJCS, which is very simple
   - (I haven’t tested this CDDL against nested EAT examples yet; will do that if there is desire to go forward).

- I added the glue CDDL to hook up UJCS and UCCS to EAT


While I know many of you have local use cases that only need CBOR and have waited many years for this, I still think we should do this for the sake of the larger community, so save ourselves work and make it easier for the reader and future work based on CWT/JWT. I’m trying to help out here to make it go.

Of course, in the end it is the consensus of this WG that determines what we do.  Now we have a rough idea of the work it takes to get this done to help decided whether to do this or not.

LL



On Sep 15, 2023, at 6:10 AM, Thomas Fossati <[e-mail]> wrote:

hi Laurence,

On Wed, 13 Sept 2023 at 20:02, lgl island-resort.com
<[e-mail]> wrote:
I did look at what it would take to add it to the UCCS raft and it doesn’t seem too difficult. The biggest disruption is seems like the name change. The CDDL is already there. I will try to help with the authorship in UCCS.

Am I reading this correctly that you'd be the one preparing a PR with
the necessary changes?

That'd give us a precise measure of the effort required for widening
scope to UJCS, and it's probably the best way to convince all doubting
Thomas :-)

cheers, t