[sacm] [sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-coswid] Top level tagged / untagged (#34)

Laurence Lundblade <notifications@github.com> Wed, 11 November 2020 20:50 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5C3F3A10DF for <sacm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 12:50:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
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 BJtdjzjv4-1b for <sacm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 12:50:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.github.com (out-21.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.204]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 710843A10D8 for <sacm@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 12:50:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github.com (hubbernetes-node-c806444.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.17.28]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 889F5520DC4 for <sacm@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 12:50:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1605127837; bh=isT2kJYPxud4rLIgpbj00ZDNT6n7vk0Rsorx0hLQrik=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=e1jaarUuvmoYdah0sii7jTgtoDoB83FvK85V59k5uCh62P9At5jq8BlMobUkQkXNY +L5YJyhfby3Zy+kXZipJ1e7cbyzTcgw8+PvzSwCdr26oPW1a84Bj/1GcUvhhJtLQA3 oV0IwXVWzdh4jDaUs8qGu5jHOGhwAhf3K/Hn+U3U=
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 12:50:37 -0800
From: Laurence Lundblade <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-coswid <reply+ACTMJUJ5ZHEZKZ4E7W6XA6N5XAXZ3EVBNHHCYK5TAY@reply.github.com>
To: sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-coswid <draft-ietf-sacm-coswid@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-coswid/issues/34@github.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5fac4e9d8450e_4b19b4152467"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: laurencelundblade
X-GitHub-Recipient: sacm
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: sacm@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sacm/MRNLs0PK4mkP34t_X7zasBDZkrc>
Subject: [sacm] [sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-coswid] Top level tagged / untagged (#34)
X-BeenThere: sacm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: SACM WG mail list <sacm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sacm>, <mailto:sacm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sacm/>
List-Post: <mailto:sacm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sacm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm>, <mailto:sacm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 20:50:40 -0000

My understanding in CBOR is that a "tag" is is made up of the tag number ( 1398229316 ) **and** the tag content. From CBORbis:

>    We use the term
>    "tag" for the entire data item consisting of both a tag number and
>    the tag content: the tag content is the data item that is being
>    tagged

In CoSWID the CDDL type concise-swid-tag describes the content. If it was really a tag it would be something more like  concise-swid-tag = #6.1398229316(concise-swid-content) and concise-swid-content would be defined as what concise-swid-tag is.

It also seems like the tagging for COSE-wrapped CoSWIDs could be improved or at least clarified. It should be OK do this: #6.1398229316(#6.18()). If by external means one knows some CBOR is a CoSWID, it should be possible to distinguish whether it is signed or unsigned by wrapping with #6.18(). 

My goal here is to have only one claim in EAT for a CoSWID, rather than EAT having to have separate claims for when a CoSWID is signed or unsigned.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-coswid/issues/34