Hi Mike, Brandon,
On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 at 23:10, Mike Ounsworth
wrote:
>
> Hi Brandon,
>
> So, you are registering the challenge “device-attest-01”, but your draft is
> very specific to WebAuthn, and excludes any other attestation technology.
>
> Request: could you either rename your draft to “we
Why is the extensibility mechanism in webauthn not sufficient? There's even a
registry already set up for those already:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8809#sctn-attstn-format-registry.
On 7/25/24, 9:13 AM, "Thomas Fossati" mailto:thomas.foss...@linaro.org>> wrote:
Hi Mike, Brandon,
On W
Yoav,
I did not have enough time to approve specific slides for this week, but I can
talk about the status of the DTN-related ACME draft for 10-15 minutes.
From: Yoav Nir
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 7:52 PM
To: IETF ACME
Subject: [EXT] [Acme] Re: Presentations for the ACME session at IE
Carl, Thomas,
I think we’re gonna see three situations:
1) ACME attestation evidence comes wrapped inside WebAuthn.
2) ACME attestation evidence comes wrapped inside CMW.
3) ACME attestation evidence comes in some other format – either not wrapped,
or in some other wrapper format.
Ca
Hi Carl,
On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 3:19 PM Carl Wallace wrote:
>
> Why is the extensibility mechanism in webauthn not sufficient? There's even a
> registry already set up for those already:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8809#sctn-attstn-format-registry.
In the scope of Brandon's draft I th
On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 at 17:30, Mike Ounsworth wrote:
> Regardless, somebody probably needs to start a draft parallel to Brandon’s
> that tells how to carry CMW in ACME so that we can start having these
> discussions
Happy to help with that.
> [...] let’s not slow down Brandon’s draft by trying
While the final draft could certainly register "webauthn-attest-01"
instead, I seriously doubt reclaiming "device-attest-01" for more
generic use is possible at this point. Just as an one example, three
major versions of iOS and two major versions of macOS at a minimum
will ship that use the valida
> The identifier version suffix seems plausibly useful here. Could the future
> ACME CMW document register "device-attest-02" instead of repurposing
> "device-attest-01"?
I could see that working.
---
Mike Ounsworth
-Original Message-
From: Brandon Weeks
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2024
On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 at 18:50, Mike Ounsworth wrote:
>
> > The identifier version suffix seems plausibly useful here. Could the future
> > ACME CMW document register "device-attest-02" instead of repurposing
> > "device-attest-01"?
>
> I could see that working.
+1 (maybe dropping "device-" altog
Inline…
From: Mike Ounsworth
Date: Thursday, July 25, 2024 at 11:30 AM
To: Carl Wallace , Thomas Fossati
Cc: "acme@ietf.org" , "draft-acme-device-att...@ietf.org"
Subject: RE: [Acme] Re: Can we rename "draft-bweeks-acme-device-attest" to
"webauthn-attest"?
Carl, Thomas,
I think we
Carl,
You’d propose to put inside CMW, inside
WebAuthn, inside the device-attest-01 defined in Brandon’s draft? Is that done?
I see the registry you’re referring to of registered Webauthn sub-formats:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/webauthn/webauthn.xhtml
but I don’t see CMW. Is that the
Very well. You are on the agenda. We’ll leave a generic title slide for you
in the chair deck.
> On 25 Jul 2024, at 16:24, Sipos, Brian J. wrote:
>
> Yoav,
> I did not have enough time to approve specific slides for this week, but I
> can talk about the status of the DTN-related ACME draft
My primary concern with "moving beyond the CSR" is that it's a defacto
standard which is widely supported today, so we should make sure that (at
least for the most part), an ACME client can still take a CSR and transform
it into whatever public key format is required. But if the ACME client
doesn'
Why aren't we talking about going to DANE instead?
thx ..Tom (mobile)
On Thu, Jul 25, 2024, 3:34 PM Matthew McPherrin wrote:
> My primary concern with "moving beyond the CSR" is that it's a defacto
> standard which is widely supported today, so we should make sure that (at
> least for the most
14 matches
Mail list logo
