[Rats] Re: UCCS and EAT media types (was: Re: Re: AD follow-up review of draft-ietf-rats-uccs-09)

[Thomas Fossati <[e-mail]>]

Hi Carsten,

On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 at 17:09, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > On 2024-06-03, at 09:46, Thomas Fossati <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Hence, UJCS is *not* defined by draft-ietf-rats-uccs.  Correct?
>
> Well, it is *defined*.

We could quibble on the term "defined" :-)
What I mean is an explicit statement "UJCS = <something>"
Otherwise, I have the Voldemort problem.

> It is another name for the JWT claims set as defined in RFC 7519.
> The UCCS document simply supplies CDDL that can be used for this.
> The UCCS document also describes the role an unprotected claims set can have in the RATS context, specifically for UCCS.
> There is no normative intent with this definition beyond that, but the description of the role of UCCS can be analogously applied to UJCS.
> The normative intent of referencing UJCS would be in the document that uses this CDDL definition normatively.
> Interestingly, Section 4.2.18 already reads exactly like this, without using the term UJCS (it only gives UCCS as an example).

Yes, but again without calling it out explicitly.

> > If so, we need to remove it from draft-ietf-rats-eat-media-type.
>
> I don’t think that this is necessarily following.

Ditto Voldemort.

> > As an aside, I am starting to wonder whether it'd be better for
> > draft-ietf-rats-eat-media-type to just drop the registrations for UCCS
> > and let draft-ietf-rats-uccs handle it.
>
> I think this could also very well be done (media type and content format, that is).
> Is there a need to have “eat” in the name?

Not necessarily, if their scope is wider than EAT.
However, they need to be compatible with EAT and therefore allow for
the eat_profile claim to bubble up as a media type parameter.

> (I would probably also let the names reveal that UJCS and UCCS are not exactly the same data structures, so this would be application/uccs+cbor and application/ujcs+json.)

WFM

cheers, thanks