Hi Bill,
From what I can tell there are no differences in this regard. Of course, the
data has to be encoded differently and so there is a need to state the new data
type but beyond that I haven’t seen any restrictions yet. Of course, the COSE
work is still ongoing and so it might be a bit too
Hi William,
You are indeed correct that the current document contains a list of one-by-one
copies of claims from the JWT. The only difference is the data type. Probably
it would have been better to just reference the semantic from the JWT spec and
then state the new data type.
I fully understa
Bill Mills wrote:
> If there are structural differences in what CBOR can support it would be
> worthwhile to note that. Examples of things supported in JWT that you
> can't do in CBOR could be very helpful to implementers.
Those don't exist, but there may be things you have to do in JSON that
you
If there are structural differences in what CBOR can support it would be
worthwhile to note that. Examples of things supported in JWT that you can't do
in CBOR could be very helpful to implementers.
On Monday, November 16, 2015 1:32 PM, William Denniss
wrote:
You raise some good
Hi Hannes. Thanks for the feedback. Replies are inline below...
> -Original Message-
> From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hannes
> Tschofenig
> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 6:55 AM
> To: oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-proof-of-possession-06
Hello,
I reviewed draft-ietf-oauth-pop-architecture and have a few questions.
1. Section 6, Threat Mitigation:
Last sentence of first paragraph, "To
simplify the subsequent description we assume that the token itself
is digitally signed by the authorization server and therefore cannot
b
Hi William,
I have been trying to do a document update to see how well a combined registry
works and I have been wondering whether it is really worth the effort.
To make a good judgment I looked at the CNF claim defined in
draft-ietf-oauth-proof-of-possession. The CNF claim may contain sub-eleme
Hi all,
I noticed a few glitches with the most recent version of the
draft-ietf-oauth-proof-of-possession document.
** PoP Figure (Symmetric Key)
FROM:
+--+
| | +--+
| |--(4) Presentation of -->|
