draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-10.txt   draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-11.txt 
ACE M. Jones ACE M. Jones
Internet-Draft Microsoft Internet-Draft Microsoft
Intended status: Standards Track L. Seitz Intended status: Standards Track L. Seitz
Expires: May 2, 2020 RISE SICS Expires: May 3, 2020 RISE SICS
G. Selander G. Selander
Ericsson AB Ericsson AB
S. Erdtman S. Erdtman
Spotify Spotify
H. Tschofenig H. Tschofenig
Arm Ltd. Arm Ltd.
October 30, 2019 October 31, 2019
Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for CBOR Web Tokens (CWTs) Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for CBOR Web Tokens (CWTs)
draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-10 draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-11
Abstract Abstract
This specification describes how to declare in a CBOR Web Token (CWT) This specification describes how to declare in a CBOR Web Token (CWT)
(which is defined by RFC 8392) that the presenter of the CWT (which is defined by RFC 8392) that the presenter of the CWT
possesses a particular proof-of-possession key. Being able to prove possesses a particular proof-of-possession key. Being able to prove
possession of a key is also sometimes described as being the holder- possession of a key is also sometimes described as being the holder-
of-key. This specification provides equivalent functionality to of-key. This specification provides equivalent functionality to
"Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for JSON Web Tokens (JWTs)" (RFC "Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for JSON Web Tokens (JWTs)" (RFC
7800) but using Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and CWTs 7800) but using Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and CWTs
skipping to change at page 1, line 45 skipping to change at page 1, line 45
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 2, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 3, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 10, line 31 skipping to change at page 10, line 31
However, to allow for the allocation of values prior to publication, However, to allow for the allocation of values prior to publication,
the Designated Experts may approve registration once they are the Designated Experts may approve registration once they are
satisfied that such a specification will be published. [[ Note to satisfied that such a specification will be published. [[ Note to
the RFC Editor: The name of the mailing list should be determined in the RFC Editor: The name of the mailing list should be determined in
consultation with the IESG and IANA. Suggested name: cwt-reg- consultation with the IESG and IANA. Suggested name: cwt-reg-
review@ietf.org. ]] review@ietf.org. ]]
Registration requests sent to the mailing list for review should use Registration requests sent to the mailing list for review should use
an appropriate subject (e.g., "Request to Register CWT Confirmation an appropriate subject (e.g., "Request to Register CWT Confirmation
Method: example"). Registration requests that are undetermined for a Method: example"). Registration requests that are undetermined for a
period longer than 21 days can be brought to the IESG's attention period longer than 21 days can be brought directly to IANA's
(using the iesg@ietf.org mailing list) for resolution. attention (using the iana@iana.org mailing list) for resolution.
Designated Experts should determine whether a registration request Designated Experts should determine whether a registration request
contains enough information for the registry to be populated with the contains enough information for the registry to be populated with the
new values and whether the proposed new functionality already exists. new values and whether the proposed new functionality already exists.
In the case of an incomplete registration or an attempt to register In the case of an incomplete registration or an attempt to register
already existing functionality, the Designated Experts should ask for already existing functionality, the Designated Experts should ask for
corrections or reject the registration. corrections or reject the registration.
It is suggested that multiple Designated Experts be appointed who are It is suggested that multiple Designated Experts be appointed who are
able to represent the perspectives of different applications using able to represent the perspectives of different applications using
skipping to change at page 14, line 36 skipping to change at page 14, line 36
Vyncke, and Jim Schaad. Vyncke, and Jim Schaad.
Ludwig Seitz and Goeran Selander worked on this document as part of Ludwig Seitz and Goeran Selander worked on this document as part of
the CelticPlus projects CyberWI and CRITISEC, with funding from the CelticPlus projects CyberWI and CRITISEC, with funding from
Vinnova. Vinnova.
Document History Document History
[[ to be removed by the RFC Editor before publication as an RFC ]] [[ to be removed by the RFC Editor before publication as an RFC ]]
-11
o Addressed remaining IESG review comment by Mirja Kuehlewind.
-10 -10
o Addressed IESG review comments by Adam Roach and Eric Vyncke. o Addressed IESG review comments by Adam Roach and Eric Vyncke.
-09 -09
o Addressed Gen-ART review comments by Christer Holmberg and SecDir o Addressed Gen-ART review comments by Christer Holmberg and SecDir
review comments by Yoav Nir. review comments by Yoav Nir.
-08 -08
 End of changes. 6 change blocks. 
6 lines changed or deleted 10 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/