Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-12

Kathleen Moriarty <> Fri, 02 March 2018 18:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A61E12E8B1; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 10:29:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PHYkLQhid0S7; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 10:29:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0071812E878; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 10:29:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 108so9539856otv.3; Fri, 02 Mar 2018 10:29:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=0zAH+2wKqkP0d+h5Q5oQgM1GXDXGT4P2Oh7SddYN7Ok=; b=BIm+3Ixb2SKeTczgTe4O75T1LW7RfT9RGk+Q3WSBiMHQuRxfz4kK2rCf75l8va8QpV io0io15B8nCP/EZh0CkgxqyFpyhC54BmLOPAiHA9U+q8vxpuw5j6Z+laS3Atl116KuKo Jpt7JBpgaUeHbA8e2nIkIQvCAi/Orh092/lBKWpNiEYa6ZROf1ujHbE+glRy4Ss6BUvj c8rXVO0jE0asLjLeBmn1VlsaaKlxM2XsUtoMyPrjiV7b+I/qGvG35889PuM/Qsert6I0 WxSF8bIhsKqbSyqFPaJA1N6mnUk5OVxgwYrOTKz6fUZJyHjRkRw7RHti6guB8f5Z4g6s 3o9Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0zAH+2wKqkP0d+h5Q5oQgM1GXDXGT4P2Oh7SddYN7Ok=; b=b0gh8b0lgIeVxw1sEEtjrMBiJOGBtfTWcaluFXdr2fznSUz8dm1s78zpq7ATT1PhVs JQa061gL1NiPvl6WahGpNC7CM7197m7S6d4CXWEXUC8Nhj+lPi6yfyOp2gq1HTQxXiNa N9wXw+Mdq3HU4zseanLyAjXchWJ3L/L3wBpViyzxWp0wBXASlLSuuRiHT0osSg2lI6Y9 zjjeSd0nE8Jg/lUH8y0WMAE15kp2sYqdefniToKyk3WYZ1xLCSoTX/ZIa4V6vLaB6K15 odbf9M0PDuSGhSl3dOtbJA17YJ6jH7Vn4u1ErXz/UXd6ASre52sJY4D9J4W/0+iV2+bO z8dQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7FX8c9H63Ef/WZQ80oiqshs5RRJX3IHvytDtVPu0EqaqQ8TU88a 2U6KOSmI/LYaaoc0aru2AA1P4Y+xpXz04zdC/v4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELtRsEEN1s02yqwoLezN2LCCXR5AKuB+7G90QwB1wvpMLENWQ8P3nWKuv6Tf2xGZkCZUdx4pmXIra+SA/GySXkA=
X-Received: by with SMTP id n58mr4348283ote.215.1520015368430; Fri, 02 Mar 2018 10:29:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 10:28:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Kathleen Moriarty <>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 13:28:48 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Kyle Rose <>
Cc: IETF SecDir <>, The IESG <>,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-12
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2018 18:29:35 -0000

Thanks for your review, Kyle!

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:16 PM, Kyle Rose <>; wrote:
> Reviewer: Kyle Rose
> Review result: Ready with nits
> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
> effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
> comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area
> directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> This draft specifies a means for representing claims in CBOR, and for using
> COSE to encrypt and authenticate such claims. The listed security
> considerations seem to cover the same ground as the respective slices of the
> corresponding JWT references: the COSE RFC 8152 covers issues of trust
> establishment, as well as the vagaries of signature algorithms and key
> reuse, in more depth.
> My only nit for this document is the repeated use of the phrasing "...has
> the same meaning, syntax, and processing rules as..." throughout section
> 3.1: specifically, the inclusion of "syntax". For example, it doesn't seem
> to make sense to talk about the syntax of a CBOR NumericDate being the same
> as, or different from, the syntax of a JSON NumericDate: clearly, the binary
> representation is different, and it's not at all clear that it makes sense
> to talk about the human-readable source representation in this context. That
> said, there is some parallelism with respect to StringOrURI, as presumably
> the intent is to require that all strings containing a colon also be valid
> URIs.

Good point.  Authors, please put these adjustments in your working
copy of the draft and ack the changes made here.

Thank you,


Best regards,