Hi,
To add my few words,
I am a proponent to explicitly state that the payload is a voucher and
its signature production.
Actually, my code decides what routines to invoke on the basis of that
information.
Peter
Carsten Bormann schreef op 2021-07-22 10:39:
On 2021-07-22, at 10:23, Esko Dijk <esko.d...@iotconsultancy.nl> wrote:
be liberal in what it accepts
Well, Postel's principle doesn't apply to wanton extension of the
protocol (~ somebody might decide to do something different from the
standard, so I'll implement my idea of what that could be). If it says
you need to have X, allowing Y just to get clients to rely on that and
make life harder for other server implementations is also known as a
common standards-busting strategy…
(Not accusing you of this, just trying to explain my strong reaction.)
[1]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-protocol-maintenance/
The reason I was bringing up the benefits of identifying the payload as
a voucher is that it would serve to fulfill number one of the
Abadi-Needham principles: context-free messages ("Explicit
communication" [2]).
Grüße, Carsten
[2] M. Abadi and R. Needham. Prudent Engineering Practice for
Cryptographic Protocols. In 1994 IEEE Computer Society Symposium on
Research in Security and Privacy, pages 122-136. IEEE Computer Society,
May 1994. DOI 10.1109/RISP.1994.296587.
Principle 1
Every message should say what it means:
the interpretation of the message should depend only on its content.
It should be possible to write down a straightforward English
sentence describing the content-though if there is a suitable
formalism available that is good too.
[Note that "describing" here is semantic, a CDDL description is good
too, but just structural.]
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
